Minutes IETF99: iasa20
||Minutes IETF99: iasa20
# IASA 2.0 BoF at IETF99 Notes
- Note Well
- Design Team Report (15:55)
- Don't have fully specified options yet
- Specified what feedback we'd like to get here:
- Areas of possible reorg
- Three potential options (IASA++, ISOC subsidiary, IETForg)
- would love to hear other options if you have them.
- (brian goes through the outline of each option)
- (brian goes through feedback received)
- Discussion (14:10)
- Jordi: risk of being independent entity is that we will depend
directly on sponsors (big corps, vendors). Not sure that's good for being
an independent SDO. It seems risky. We are probably better staying within
the ISOC umbrella, but clearly separate staff and such.
- Brian: taking considerations from other comments that people have been
making... will be an important aspect to choose between tham.
- Bob Hinden: I view the IETF as a volunteer organization, essentially.
Because some of these alternatives require much more staff and that will
fundamentally change the character of the organization. That is something
to consider from going to a fiduciary board. You need to examine that in
- Jon: clarify how that would change the nature of the IETF.
- Bob H: It would rest more decision-making authority with staff... a
lot of things that the IETF will care about will start to be decisions that
are made by staff. Those decisions are made by the IAOC and the larger
community. The Staff executes what the IAOC proposes to do.
- Brian: we discussed what are the trade-offs between operational and
strategic decisions. We'll need to identify that.
- Ted Hardie: my understanding is that we're giving feedback to the DT.
At some later point we'll get to design decisions? (Jon: Yes.) All of these
options are workable if you have people in place whose training and
experience gives them the ability to make the kind of decisions that we
delegate to them. That may be because of the pool of people that we draw
- Hope is not a strategy.
- Brian: you want 1) skill factors needed; and 2) estimate of the
workload required for options.
- Leslie: there are aspects of this that we need to keep in mind...
including what problem we are trying to solve.
- There are aspects of running our business that are constrained by ISOC
processes. For example, our contracting processes have to match ISOC's
contracting processes, and that's not necessarily ideal.
- We Need to stay focused on the split of responsibilities vs. oversight
and strategic responsibility. [Leslie's draft] tried to do some of that.
Responsibility falls on the IETF Chair which can overburden that role.
- We need to articulate more the problems solved by particular models.
The only reason we can make any changes is that the IETF sees problems and
need to change.
- Jonnie Soininen: doesn't really matter how you organize a company, the
board can still act as the IAOC does. So we need to look at how to change
the culture in addition as to how to change the structure.
- which of those targets that the DT has identified actually require
- *We may need a transition plan.*
- There are examples of orgs, i.e., Linux Foundation that has
organizations where there is a board and a structure but there are also
orgs that don't have a legal status, so there are ways to do this, but we
really need to specify what is really needed to achieve those targets in
terms of what legal structure needs to be there.
- We might come to the conclusion that we want to do a legal separation
- Brian: what you say echoes what at least three other people have said
on the mailing list. Should we focus on problems and goals first before
what structure might fit it?
- Jonnie: the legal structure of the IETF may not be the solution, but
may be a part of a solution. E.g., role clarity between IETF/ISOC doesn't
require a change in legal structure. It can be, but doesn't have to.
- EKR: Ted, as you said, very early stages. Certainly agree that
structural change is not enough.
- What I'd like to hear from people about is that having a board may
require people to be on that board who don't have a lot of experience with
IETF but do running boards.
- and Bob mentioned that he's not comfortable with Staff making so much
of the decisions, but EKR is willing to trade off executive control for
- my red line is not having any of their involvement in the development
- John Klensin: "ollowing up on several recent comments, I think the
most frequent difficulty with IASA/IAOC so far has lack of transparency to
the community and the appearance of making strategic decisions _for_ the
community, rather than focusing on determining and reflecting community
consensus. Perhaps others don't care but, if "we" do, we should be
concentrating on changes that would fix (or improve on) that problem and
then evaluate proposed solutions on the basis of how they would improve or
pessimize things. Some of that reinforces Jonnie's comment, of course."
- Randy Bush: my first reaction, "Change, oh no!" I think up-leveling is
that we're at an intersection of our culture and the shibboleths we
worship: transparency, technical correctnes, [a few other properties], but
not running a small business.
- I have an instinct against having more staff that we pay to do this
because that changes the game.
- The legs of the stools, IAOC, ISOC, etc. The one that has the largest
clue in terms of administration is the Secretariat. I don't have to think
about those things, they get done. In terms of how to go forward, we're
clearly not good at it and ISOC doesn't get the culture.
- Tobias G: regarding the legal structure, been on a few, and there is
very big independence between culture and execution. Legal structure has
very tiny influence in my experience.
- question about staff, IAOC, community: if we want to hand more staff
to the decisions, today there is a concern that the IAOC is already taking
too much decisions. Not sure how this will play out if we delegate more to
the staff. Community will need to recognize that.
- Brian Rosen: in a hallway convo, I lean to "don't break what isn't
broken". We can't fire the IAD, he doesn't work for us. There is a process,
but we can't fire him. It isn't a problem, but it could be in the future.
- I think the marketing problem and generating more income is
unfortunately a job that needs the right person more than it needs the
right organization. Have been in a similar state before where we thought if
we could change the org, we could find the money. and it turned out we just
needed the right guy.
- Jon P: do you think that we as the IETF possess that kind of
competence? Brian R: no. and we can't necessarily identify the right person.
- Jari Arkko: speaking as an indiv., not as DT. Culture comments being
disjoint from legal structure is spot on.
- Need to realistically look at the current system and ask if we are
acting on an operational basis, do we have the time/capacity that we need?
I don't think we do, it's not necessarily working well right now. Confusion
and lack of time.
- Gonzalo A: channeling Kathy, she's actually surprised that she's
legally responsible, has to sign stuff, and has no control over them.
- *DT should talk to Kathy Brown.*
- She thought that it's just a bit weird to have this responsibility.
- Ray P.: Three things: BCP 101 provides that the IAOC can fire/hire IAD.
- important that whatever the oversight body is, that it have a cultural
clue. They have to provide guidelines that ensure that the IAD knows what
is going on and has the information they need to execute from the community.
- IAD should hire the marketing people. That's the person who should
have responsibility for stuff that the IAOC does now.
- Brian: would you state that that involvement is contingent on having
- Ray: IAOC should meet quarterly, not once a month. Let the IAD or
whomever that is run the business. Without that, it takes away from that
person the feeling that they own that and can run that.
- Jason Livingood: we definitely need the right guy/girl to do
- Definitely need to cost out these various options. Based on current
income, the IETF is not financially sustainable. Receives an annual top-up
- *Jon: has the DT identified a good set of options?*
- Ted: whole bunch of options we could have considered that would have
really been bad. E.g., merging with some other SDO? This is the kind of
thing that is not considered, I'm fine with that.
- There are ranges within these options that are substantially
different. Each of these is a class of options... that's fine for DT, but
we'll need to narrow it at some point. Want us to be careful to recognize
where this well get us... this will be the start of a journey.
- Jonnie S: agree with what Ted said.
- Yes, I think these are the possible viable ways forward in terms of
legal entity. But don't think these are solutions to the problems
identified in the document (the targets).
- Jon: nope, some of these structures might utterly transform the [org
- Jonnie: the legal entity solution will not solve any of those
problems, but you need to do that to see what options you have.
- *Jon: if we just made the IAOC more consultive and transparent, that
alone will fix things. Is there anyone that agrees with that?* No.
- Leslie: get the point, structure doesn't answer the targets.
- A more useful approach may be "here are the problems we've identified,
and here are options that might solve them"
- Lucy Lynch: I actually think that there is prep work before one of
these structures is cleared.
- given income streams and Kathy's current understanding... work there
that is clarifying work that allows us to understand if there are even
options there that we can run with.