date:20130306


A few personal thoughts follows. For the record this is completely at the 
general level, I have no inside knowledge about the nomination process.

I am of the opinion that ADs should not be selected based on them being rare 
super experts. The ability to learn, as Sam pointed out, is perhaps most 
important. Along with some basic clue about the area, as Russ put it. But it 
is important to note that the ADs are not just reviewers or quality checkers. 
In a lot of cases they are and they should be leading, helping the area move to 
whatever direction is necessary for the Internet to be a better place. It is 
the S or Steering in IESG. And I believe this is why the selection is not 
usually easy. It does take some, perhaps significant familiarity with the area 
to be able to do that. You'll be helped by everyone on that, but it cannot be 
entirely outsourced. (And note that this ability is not the same as detailed 
knowledge of protocol bits or algorithms, which may be needed as well, but 
you'll need a view about the industry's direction, a grasp of real-life 
Internet user situation and many other things as well.) So in the end maybe it 
is more than basic clue.

Some generalists have that or could develop it. Some don't. Earlier in the 
thread we had an argument from Eliot and others about whether we've had success 
or not when picking generalists. The problem with bringing up specific cases 
from the past is that you don't know why those cases succeeded or failed. I can 
think of situations where a generalist could have worked well, but the 
particular person didn't have it. But I can also think of situations where a 
super expert didn't manage the area as well as it should have been managed. 
FWIW, I think there would be several generalist IETFers who would do a great 
job as TSV AD even if their specific congestion control knowledge is not rated 
at the expert level - at the moment.

In any case, I think we've now experienced the same problem for a number of 
years in transport. I do not think it is a one time problem, we need to make a 
decision about what to do this in a more long-term fashion than just for this 
year. This is why it is important that the discussion was brought out in the 
open, rather than, say, noncom just making a particular decision or the IESG 
just silently on changing its requirements.

And I think we should have a broader view about this than just updating the 
requirements for the seat. There are a couple of other aspects to consider as 
well. First, perhaps the way that we have organised TSV is contributing to the 
problems. Would a different organisation, say, a different grouping of the 
working groups to areas help businesses see a bigger value in sponsoring an AD 
for the area? Should the area be merged with something else, and if we did 
that, would that change available funding or expertise? Or do we have the right 
number of ADs to begin with? Second, are there more general things that we 
could do about the AD role, making it easier to do the job, e.g., as an 
academic and on the side of your other duties? This might also increase the 
number of available candidates in other areas.

Jari

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

2013-03-06 Thread Margaret Wasserman


Hi Jari,

On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
 
 And I think we should have a broader view about this than just updating the 
 requirements for the seat. There are a couple of other aspects to consider as 
 well. First, perhaps the way that we have organised TSV is contributing to 
 the problems. Would a different organisation, say, a different grouping of 
 the working groups to areas help businesses see a bigger value in sponsoring 
 an AD for the area? Should the area be merged with something else, and if we 
 did that, would that change available funding or expertise? Or do we have the 
 right number of ADs to begin with? Second, are there more general things that 
 we could do about the AD role, making it easier to do the job, e.g., as an 
 academic and on the side of your other duties? This might also increase the 
 number of available candidates in other areas.

I completely agree with this.

The shortage of candidates is not only a problem in the Transport area, even 
though it might be more obvious in this area, so I think we should focus on 
this as a general problem not a specific one.

However, I question the wisdom of choosing to work on this issue _right now_ in 
the middle of the nomcom selection process, rather than choosing the best 
candidates we can and working on this problem for next year, or for future 
years.  It doesn't seem likely that there are any quick fixes here.

If the IESG does decide to reorganize the TSV area(s) and/or reduce the number 
of seats right now, I think you need to seriously consider the possibility that 
all of the ADs in the affected/related areas should resign, so that the nomcom 
can pick the best set of ADS to cover the area(s) given the remaining seats.  
So, even that sort of change isn't likely to solve the problem next week.

I'd like to receive some explanation (privately or publicly) about why we are 
doing this in the middle of the nomcom process that makes any sense to me...

Margaret

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director


Margaret,

 
 However, I question the wisdom of choosing to work on this issue _right now_ 
 in the middle of the nomcom selection process, rather than choosing the best 
 candidates we can and working on this problem for next year, or for future 
 years.  It doesn't seem likely that there are any quick fixes here.
 
 If the IESG does decide to reorganize the TSV area(s) and/or reduce the 
 number of seats right now, I think you need to seriously consider the 
 possibility that all of the ADs in the affected/related areas should resign, 
 so that the nomcom can pick the best set of ADS to cover the area(s) given 
 the remaining seats.  So, even that sort of change isn't likely to solve the 
 problem next week.
 
 I'd like to receive some explanation (privately or publicly) about why we are 
 doing this in the middle of the nomcom process that makes any sense to me…

I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we take.

I agree of course that right now we have an issue to solve. I agree that we 
should do whatever to complete the current process, and that waiting for a 
reorganisation would be a bad idea. 

However, given that I feel that I've been through varying levels of similar 
issues for last couple of years, I would also like to ensure that we do 
something more permanent. Counting backwards from various deadlines, if we are 
going to make a change for 2014, then the IESG requirements and area 
descriptions need to be given to noncom by July this year. That is coming up 
very fast. If we would do something bigger, that needs a lot of discussion in 
the community. Not saying we necessarily should reorganise, but we need to 
consider the options.

Hope this clarifies,

Jari

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD



On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at
the set of nominees and consider what you know about their
qualifications.

...
  I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach

for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this message
was the best choice,

...


I don't have an opinion about the current candidates.  This note 
concerns Sam's effort:  I think it's thoughtful and reasonable, within 
the bounds of the situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture.


And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to 
have discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the specific TSV 
situation...


There's an option available that the candidates might want to consider, 
to facilitate the public review of candidate qualifications:


Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review.  Roughly, it has 
two parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the appropriate 
Confirming Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming Body.


 Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.

Nomcom is prohibited from making these documents public, but the 
candidates are not.


The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is 
that it might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom process tries 
hard to avoid such opportunities.  The language in the forms is 
necessarily self-promoting.  After all, the candidate is trying to 
explain why they think they are appropriate for a job.


However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are 
qualified, versus the hype of politicking.  One would hope that IETF 
participants can tell that difference.  And it could be helpful for the 
community to see how a candidate sees themselves.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Bert Wijnen (IETF)


Dave, it seems to me that with your suggestion it feels as if
you (or we the community) want to redo some of the nomcom work?
I.e. you do not trust their evaluations?

They also have received (I presume) lots of feedback on the candidates
and probably did some interviews. We do not have that info. So tough
to challenge them based on only nominees statements.

Bert Wijnen

On 3/6/13 2:57 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:


On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at
the set of nominees and consider what you know about their
qualifications.

...
   I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach

for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this message
was the best choice,

...


I don't have an opinion about the current candidates.  This note concerns Sam's 
effort:  I think it's thoughtful and reasonable,
within the bounds of the situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture.

And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to have 
discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the
specific TSV situation...

There's an option available that the candidates might want to consider, to 
facilitate the public review of candidate qualifications:

Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review.  Roughly, it has two 
parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the
appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming 
Body.

  Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.

Nomcom is prohibited from making these documents public, but the candidates are 
not.

The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is that it 
might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom
process tries hard to avoid such opportunities.  The language in the forms is 
necessarily self-promoting.  After all, the candidate
is trying to explain why they think they are appropriate for a job.

However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are 
qualified, versus the hype of politicking.  One would hope
that IETF participants can tell that difference.  And it could be helpful for 
the community to see how a candidate sees themselves.

d/

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

2013-03-06 Thread Margaret Wasserman


On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
 I'd like to receive some explanation (privately or publicly) about why we 
 are doing this in the middle of the nomcom process that makes any sense to 
 me…
 
 I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we take.
 
 I agree of course that right now we have an issue to solve. I agree that we 
 should do whatever to complete the current process, and that waiting for a 
 reorganisation would be a bad idea. 

Thanks for the clarification, Jari.  I support doing thing in this order.  

It is very important that we resolve the current Transport AD selection issues 
as quickly as possible.  I don't have much visibility into what is happening 
there, despite being a candidate, but I hope some progress can be made on this 
issue in the TSV area meeting.

It is also important that we make whatever changes we can to improve the 
overall situation, both within the Transport Area and across the board, and it 
would be great if we could make some progress in this area in time for the next 
NomCom cycle.  

Thanks,
Margaret

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Dave,

There's an aspect of what people tend to include when talking about 
politicking that is
not - AFAIK - part of the job as a member of the IESG or as an AD.  That aspect 
is the desire to be
much in the public.

So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member 
or AD to hold
press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc.

Opening up the process to allow (read encourage) candidates to go 
public with their
(so far) relatively private observations about why they would be a good 
candidate for the job is
very likely to effectively eliminate some potential candidates who are 
unwilling to do so but are 
otherwise completely qualified to do the job.

This would become particularly true if the NomCom - and the IETF as a 
whole - were to
develop expectations that this would routinely happen, or suspicions about 
those who don't wish
to do so.

Because this aspect of politicking should not become a criteria for 
the job, there is more
to the general desire to avoid it than the notion that we just don't want to 
see it.

--
Eric

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave 
Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:57 AM
To: hartmans-i...@mit.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD


On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
 However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at 
 the set of nominees and consider what you know about their 
 qualifications.
...
   I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach
 for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this 
 message was the best choice,
...


I don't have an opinion about the current candidates.  This note concerns Sam's 
effort:  I think it's thoughtful and reasonable, within the bounds of the 
situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture.

And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to have 
discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the specific TSV situation...

There's an option available that the candidates might want to consider, to 
facilitate the public review of candidate qualifications:

Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review.  Roughly, it has two 
parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the appropriate Confirming 
Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming Body.

  Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.

Nomcom is prohibited from making these documents public, but the candidates are 
not.

The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is that it 
might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom process tries hard to avoid 
such opportunities.  The language in the forms is necessarily self-promoting.  
After all, the candidate is trying to explain why they think they are 
appropriate for a job.

However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are 
qualified, versus the hype of politicking.  One would hope that IETF 
participants can tell that difference.  And it could be helpful for the 
community to see how a candidate sees themselves.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Sam Hartman

 Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:


Dave And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I
Dave happened to have discussed privately some time ago and
Dave unrelated to the specific TSV situation...

Dave There's an option available that the candidates might want to
Dave consider, to facilitate the public review of candidate
Dave qualifications:

Dave Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review.
Dave Roughly, it has two parts, with one that is available to
Dave Nomcom and the appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that
Dave is withheld from the Confirming Body.

Dave  Candidates could choose to circulate the first part
Dave publicly.


I think having a public discussion of specific candidates would be
undesirable.  Because Russ's message was posted while the nomcom process
is ongoing, we're already in a situation where it feels like where we're
publicly debating whether a set of named candidates are preferable to an
empty seat.  I understand russ dworked as hard as he could to avoid
that.  However, it's reasonably obvious that it's impossible to avoid
that and if you read comments in the ietf list, it's actually true that
the community has taken it to that level.

Now, perhaps there are folks in the IETf with egos big enough that
they're not phased by standing in front of the community while the
community debates whether an empty seat would be an improvement over
them.  I actually suspect knowing that can happen is likely to reduce
future candidate pools.  I know I'd almost certainly withdraw from the
process rather than face that.  This process has reduced my willingness
to consider future nominations; pressuring candidates to release their
answers to questions would do so further.


--Sam

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD



On 3/6/2013 6:03 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:

Dave, it seems to me that with your suggestion it feels as if
you (or we the community) want to redo some of the nomcom work?
I.e. you do not trust their evaluations?

They also have received (I presume) lots of feedback on the candidates
and probably did some interviews. We do not have that info. So tough
to challenge them based on only nominees statements.



Bert,

I'm not commenting on the current Nomcom.  I don't have an opinion about 
the current Nomcom.


Sam is calling for the community to do additional review of the current 
candidates and provide additional input.  I am merely suggesting 
something that would facilitate that: People providing feedback can 
tailor their comments better if they have some idea of the candidates 
own statements to Nomcom.


The earlier, private discussion that I referenced was to the potential 
benefits of making the questionnaires public regularly, but that's a 
major policy change.  My current suggestion does not require that, since 
it's a matter of personal choice by each candidate.


As for the possible long-term change in policy, different factors affect 
who provides comments to Nomcom and what comments they provide.


I can't see a downside to the public availability of a candidate's own 
statements to Nomcom about their background and qualifications.  I see 
the upside of providing the community with a more complete gauge for 
judging what types of comments to provide as feedback to Nomcom about 
the candidate.


d/

--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread John C Klensin



--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray
eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:

...
   So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an
 IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with
 the masses, baby kissing, etc.
...

I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true
only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD.
Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should
face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the
IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public
representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics.

john

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

John,

I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a 
number of recent
events with which I am intimately familiar.

To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection 
that is much
more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your 
peers on the IESG.
This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
whole.

This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider 
in picking folks
for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both 
willing and
able to take on this role.

But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably 
competent NomCom that
is having to replace an outgoing Chair.

But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be 
prepared to do...

--
Eric

-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High



--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com 
wrote:

...
   So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an  IESG 
member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the masses, 
baby kissing, etc.
...

I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you 
exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD.
Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact 
--and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to 
include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public 
politics.

john

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Donald Eastlake

Eric,

As far as I know, that's completely wrong. The IETF Chair, sometimes
known as the AD for the General Area, is selected by the nomcom and
confirmed by the IAB just like all other ADs. They are not elected
chair of the IESG by the IESG members.

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
 John,

 I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a 
 number of recent
 events with which I am intimately familiar.

 To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection 
 that is much
 more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your 
 peers on the IESG.
 This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
 whole.

 This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to 
 consider in picking folks
 for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is 
 both willing and
 able to take on this role.

 But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably 
 competent NomCom that
 is having to replace an outgoing Chair.

 But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be 
 prepared to do...

 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High



 --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com 
 wrote:

...
   So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an  IESG
member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the masses,
baby kissing, etc.
...

 I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you 
 exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD.
 Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the 
 fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has 
 expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, 
 indeed, public politics.

 john

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Eric,

You are describing the process of IAB selection as opposed to IESG
selection for ensuring there is someone that is a potential chair.
The IAB voting members select the IAB chair.  The IESG members  do not
select the IETF chair.

Regards,
Mary.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
 John,

 I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a 
 number of recent
 events with which I am intimately familiar.

 To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection 
 that is much
 more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your 
 peers on the IESG.
 This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
 whole.

 This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to 
 consider in picking folks
 for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is 
 both willing and
 able to take on this role.

 But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably 
 competent NomCom that
 is having to replace an outgoing Chair.

 But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be 
 prepared to do...

 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High



 --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com 
 wrote:

...
   So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an  IESG
member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the masses,
baby kissing, etc.
...

 I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you 
 exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD.
 Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the 
 fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has 
 expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, 
 indeed, public politics.

 john

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Brian E Carpenter

Eric,


On 06/03/2013 14:29, Eric Gray wrote:
 John,
 
   I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a 
 number of recent
 events with which I am intimately familiar.
 
   To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection 
 that is much
 more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your 
 peers on the IESG.

You believe wrongly. The NomCom nominates the IETF Chair, who also serves
as IESG Chair and as AD for the General Area.

 This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
 whole.
 
   This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider 
 in picking folks
 for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is 
 both willing and
 able to take on this role.

That applies to the IAB, but not to the IESG.

Brian

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Eric: you may be thinking of the IAB chair. IETF chair / Gen AD is selected by 
the noncom, whereas the IAB chair is selected by IAB members (from the pool of 
the IAB members).

[Baby kissing? Now there is a job requirement that I missed… :-) ]

Jari

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Margaret Wasserman


Hi Eric,

The IETF Chair (who also chairs the IESG) is not selected by the IESG members 
from amongst themselves.  The IETF Chair is chosen by the nomcom directly.

The IAB chair is chosen by the IAB as you have described.

Margaret

On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:

 John,
 
   I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a 
 number of recent
 events with which I am intimately familiar.
 
   To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection 
 that is much
 more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your 
 peers on the IESG.
 This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
 whole.
 
   This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider 
 in picking folks
 for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is 
 both willing and
 able to take on this role.
 
   But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably 
 competent NomCom that
 is having to replace an outgoing Chair.
 
   But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be 
 prepared to do...
 
 --
 Eric
 
 -Original Message-
 From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High
 
 
 
 --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com 
 wrote:
 
 ...
  So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an  IESG 
 member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the masses, 
 baby kissing, etc.
 ...
 
 I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you 
 exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD.
 Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the 
 fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has 
 expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, 
 indeed, public politics.
 
john

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Thanks.

-Original Message-
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:m...@lilacglade.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Hi Eric,

The IETF Chair (who also chairs the IESG) is not selected by the IESG members 
from amongst themselves.  The IETF Chair is chosen by the nomcom directly.

The IAB chair is chosen by the IAB as you have described.

Margaret

On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:

 John,

   I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a 
 number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar.

   To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection 
 that is much more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the 
 role by your peers on the IESG.
 This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
 whole.

   This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to 
 consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at 
 least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role.

   But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably 
 competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair.

   But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be 
 prepared to do...

 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High

 --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com 
 wrote:

 ...
  So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an  IESG 
 member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the 
 masses, baby kissing, etc.
 ...

 I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you 
 exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD.
 Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the 
 fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has 
 expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, 
 indeed, public politics.

john

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Brian,

Thanks!  Not sure that this changes anything with respect to the rest 
of the
IESG, however...

--
Eric


-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,


On 06/03/2013 14:29, Eric Gray wrote:
 John,
 
   I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a 
 number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar.
 
   To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection 
 that is much more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the 
 role by your peers on the IESG.

You believe wrongly. The NomCom nominates the IETF Chair, who also serves as 
IESG Chair and as AD for the General Area.

 This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
 whole.
 
   This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to 
 consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at 
 least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role.

That applies to the IAB, but not to the IESG.

Brian

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Thanks, Mary.

-Original Message-
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:40 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

You are describing the process of IAB selection as opposed to IESG selection 
for ensuring there is someone that is a potential chair.
The IAB voting members select the IAB chair.  The IESG members  do not select 
the IETF chair.

Regards,
Mary.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
 John,

 I considered this before making my reply, especially in light 
 of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar.

 To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of 
 selection that is much more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - 
 for the role by your peers on the IESG.
 This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
 whole.

 This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to 
 consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at 
 least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role.

 But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably 
 competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair.

 But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be 
 prepared to do...

 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High

 --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com 
 wrote:

...
   So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an  
IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the 
masses, baby kissing, etc.
...

 I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you 
 exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD.
 Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the 
 fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has 
 expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, 
 indeed, public politics.

 john

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

:-)

-Original Message-
From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:37 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

As far as I know, that's completely wrong. The IETF Chair, sometimes known as 
the AD for the General Area, is selected by the nomcom and confirmed by the IAB 
just like all other ADs. They are not elected chair of the IESG by the IESG 
members.

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA  d3e...@gmail.com

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
 John,

 I considered this before making my reply, especially in light 
 of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar.

 To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of 
 selection that is much more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - 
 for the role by your peers on the IESG.
 This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a 
 whole.

 This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to 
 consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at 
 least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role.

 But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably 
 competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair.

 But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be 
 prepared to do...

 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High

 --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com 
 wrote:

...
   So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an  
IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the 
masses, baby kissing, etc.
...

 I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you 
 exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD.
 Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the 
 fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has 
 expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, 
 indeed, public politics.

 john

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00

2013-03-06 Thread Stewart Bryant


Chairs

Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below.

Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft?

Certainly I think it would be useful in IESG review.

Stewart

On 11/02/2013 21:15, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:

Ben:

Hi!

Sorry for the delay, my filters put this in a different place..  I'm
explicitly adding the OSPF chairs.  Comments below.



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-01-16
IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-24

Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There is a significant IANA registration issue described in the review
body.

Major issues:

This draft carves out a significant part of a registry with an assignment
policy of standards action for private use. It offers very little
motivation for the change. In my opinion, this sort of change should come
with a clear justification.

Specifically, the draft modifies the OSPFv3 Address Family Instance ID
registry to carve out half of the unassigned space for private use. The
justification for this is a single sentence saying that some networks
need to use IIDs to identify specific applications. I think that needs
significant elaboration in order to motivate the change in a way that the
reader can evaluate.

My understanding from the OFPS list is that this is in support of
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, which is an informational
draft. I have to wonder why the draft under review was not simply the
IANA considerations for that draft.

I suggest one of two paths forward:

1) If this change is in support of that draft in particular, then this
draft should say that, and include a _normative_ reference. I recognize
the normative downref would complicate things--but I think that
complication is reasonable under the circumstances.

2) If this change is to support a general need that goes beyond
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, then this draft should
describe that need in enough detail for people to think about it, perhaps
with an informative reference to
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as an _example_.

In short (from the shepherd write-up): The new range is for applications
that do not justify a standards track OSPFv3 Instance ID allocation. An
example would be Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets.

During pre-publication review, the WG chairs asked us to not include
explicit references to draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as that
is just an example and not the only potential user/driver.  I don't have a
problem adding an example, but I want to get agreement/comments/guidance
from the chairs before adding the text.  Acee/Abhay??




Minor issues:

-- section 3:

I don't think it's appropriate to use normative language for IANA
requests. Especially not MUST. (I think the strongest thing we can do
here is a polite request :-)  )   I suggest recasting that to descriptive
language, and removing section 2 and the RFC 2119 reference.

Yes, we already removed that in the -01 version.

Thanks!!

Alvaro.

.




--
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Hannes Tschofenig

Hi Sam, 

I think the Nomcom has made the right decision to bring the job requirement 
discussion to the community. 
The discussion about the evolution of the Transport Area had also been very 
insightful to me. 

I hope you provided your feedback to the Nomcom when they asked for it.
 
Ciao
Hannes

On Mar 6, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

 
 I have a huge number of concerns with Russ's message and am frustrated
 and disappointed when I think about this year's nomcom process.  I just
 sent a message to the nomcom and iab about one of my concerns, and would
 like to ask you whether you think you should do the same.  I
 specifically ask you not to reply to this message in public and
 appreciate your respect for the sensitivities involved.
 
 To get to this point, some combination of the nomcom and IAB has to have
 reached the conclusion that we don't have any qualified transport
 candidates when all aspects of the requirements including available time
 are considered.
 
 I believe based on the information I have available that's a very
 dubious conclusion and that there are multiple candidates I suspect are
 qualified to fill the position.  I think that the nomcom is sufficiently
 off-base here that it's worth asking the community to evaluate whether
 I'm write or not.  I wrote a long message to the nomcom and IAB
 explaining why I thought their conclusion is dead wrong.  This is not an
 appropriate question to debate on the IETf list, and discussing specific
 candidates is even more inappropriate than debating the general
 question.
 
 However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at
 the set of nominees and consider what you know about their
 qualifications.  If you think there are qualified candidates, write to
 the nomcom; I think you should copy the IAB too, because we don't know
 where in the process things stopped.  If you think that I'm wrong and we
 don't have qualified candidates it definitely seems wroth dropping the
 nomcom a note explaining your reasoning.
 
 I think this issues is important enough that it's worth your time to
 look into it especially if you may have information on qualifications.q
 
 I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach
 for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this message
 was the best choice, but I feel very strongly that we may have mad a
 serious error this year, and this is the best I could come up with.

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD



On 3/6/2013 6:17 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:

 Dave  Candidates could choose to circulate the first part
 Dave publicly.


I think having a public discussion of specific candidates would be
undesirable.


Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm 
suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the 
community, so the community can have additional information for 
providing feedback to the Nomcom.


By way of anticipating the challenge our community has in restraint from 
the type of public discussion you cite, I could imagine that the 
sergeant at arms of the ietf list could declare discussion of specific 
candidates inappropriate.




 I actually suspect knowing that can happen is likely to reduce
future candidate pools.


We went 20 years with this same concern being used as a basis for not 
making the list of candidates public.  It actually hurt Nomcom's work 
quite a bit, and making the list public has been massively helpful.


There needs to be limits to public review, which is why it makes sense 
for Nomcom deliberations to be private.  But there is also a need for 
appropriate amounts of public accountability.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport AreaDirector)

2013-03-06 Thread Cameron Byrne

On Mar 6, 2013 1:03 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 06/03/2013 08:36, t.p. wrote:
...
Interesting, there is more life in Congestion Control than I might have
thought. But it begs the question, is this something that the IETF
should be involved with or is it better handled by those who are
developping LTE etc?

From the little I know about TCP proxies, they are horrible beasts
that can impact application layer semantics. Figuring out how to deal
with mixed e2e paths (partly lossy, partly congested) seems to me
very much an IRTF/IETF topic, even if we don't have an AD who is
a subject matter expert.

Brian

There is a huge cross layer optimization issue between 3gpp and the ietf.
It is worse than you can imagine, highly akin to how the industry moved
passed the ietf with Nat. The same thing is happening with tcp. Tcp is
simply not fit for these high latency high jitter low loss networks.

Google is a player in the e2e space for various business reasons and it
appears they are now in an arms race with these horrible mobile carrier
proxies (which in many cases do on the fly transcoding of video).

There are 2 fronts. 1 is quic as linked above. Another is their own
transcoding https proxy
https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/data-compression

This is not novel. Opera mini has been doing this for years, otherwise know
as opera turbo. Oh, and Nokia has been doing it too. They even help by
bypassing pki and any sense of internet security.

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/nokia-decrypting-traffic-man-in-the-middle-attacks-103799

Hold on to your hats.

RE: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport AreaDirector)

2013-03-06 Thread John E Drake

See also:  
http://www.akamai.com/html/about/press/releases/2012/press_091312.html

Irrespectively Yours,

John

From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cameron 
Byrne
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:12 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: bra...@isi.edu; IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport 
AreaDirector)


On Mar 6, 2013 1:03 AM, Brian E Carpenter 
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.commailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 06/03/2013 08:36, t.p. wrote:
 ...
  Interesting, there is more life in Congestion Control than I might have
  thought.  But it begs the question, is this something that the IETF
  should be involved with or is it better handled by those who are
  developping LTE etc?

 From the little I know about TCP proxies, they are horrible beasts
 that can impact application layer semantics. Figuring out how to deal
 with mixed e2e paths (partly lossy, partly congested) seems to me
 very much an IRTF/IETF topic, even if we don't have an AD who is
 a subject matter expert.

Brian

There is a huge cross layer optimization issue between 3gpp and the ietf. It is 
worse than you can imagine, highly akin to how the industry moved passed the 
ietf with Nat. The same thing is happening with tcp.  Tcp is simply not fit for 
these high latency high jitter low loss networks.

Google is a player in the e2e space for various business reasons and it appears 
they are now in an arms race with these horrible mobile carrier proxies (which 
in many cases do on the fly transcoding of video).

There are 2 fronts. 1 is quic as linked above. Another is their own transcoding 
https proxy https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/data-compression

This is not novel. Opera mini has been doing this for years, otherwise know as 
opera turbo. Oh, and Nokia has been doing it too.  They even help by bypassing 
pki and any sense of internet security.

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/nokia-decrypting-traffic-man-in-the-middle-attacks-103799

Hold on to your hats.

CB

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:

 On 3/6/2013 6:17 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

 Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:

  Dave  Candidates could choose to circulate the first part
  Dave publicly.


 I think having a public discussion of specific candidates would be
 undesirable.


 Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm suggesting
 that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the
 community can have additional information for providing feedback to the
 Nomcom.
[MB] I think the Nomcom wiki would be a natural place for these
questionnaires to be made available.  I think that could improve the
quality and usefulness of community input.  It's hard for folks to
remember everything someone has done in a particular area -
particularly things that happened 10-12 years back.  Very few people
are involved in every draft/work item someone progresses, nor are they
in all the WG sessions they chair.  They may also have forgotten an
individual took over critical and conflict ridden working group
documents and successfully brought them to completion. When something
goes smoothly per the process, the work to do that is often not
visible.   Many of the individuals that provide input are not aware of
all the conflicts and challenges an individual has dealt with.  This
also gives the community more insight into how the individual would
deal with challenges in the area and what the individual sees as
challenges.

In addition, having this information readily available provides
background as to what the individual has accomplished outside IETF.
There are IETF participants that are under-utilized in IETF in terms
of what they are capable of based upon past accomplishments across a
variety of technologies as well as other relevant SDO experiences.  I
believe this latter point relates to the discussion around whether
someone that has shown they can learn new things quickly and is
capable of applying skills that have already been developed (in
another context) to a new technical context.  IMHO, folks that have
only IETF or a single technology experience may be less effective
overall than folks with broader industry experience.  In particular
given that some of the discussion around the AD roles is the
importance of being able to evaluate work across multiple areas.

Based on my experiences with Nomcom, the comments from the community
are often actually not that helpful.  Despite the request, many of the
comments don't provide constructive detail that allows the Nomcom
(many who have zero personal or work experience with the nominees) to
make decisions with any objectivity.  Right now, the process is almost
entirely subjective.  Not to get too OT to this post, but I'll bring
up the fact again, that only a small percentage of the community
(including leadership!) actually provide input to the process.  It was
only around 10% when I chaired nomcom - that's pathetic IMHO.

In one sense, I think this suggestion is entirely consistent with how
an organization evaluates folks for work positions.  Often a hiring
manager will ask folks that will be peers to review resumes, interview
the individual and provide comments even though they are not the ones
to make the final decision. In terms of Nomcom, the voting members are
in a similar role as hiring managers and the folks that review the
resumes and provide comments are just peers that can provide valuable
input to the hiring manager so they get an employee with good
qualifications.
[/MB]

 By way of anticipating the challenge our community has in restraint from the
 type of public discussion you cite, I could imagine that the sergeant at
 arms of the ietf list could declare discussion of specific candidates
 inappropriate.

[MB] Per my suggestion, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Folks
provide the questionnaire to the Nomcom.  Of course, the Nomcom may
want to reconsider what questions might be public versus nomcom only -
just as was done 5 years ago with regards to what information is
shared with the confirming bodies. [/MB]


  I actually suspect knowing that can happen is likely to reduce
 future candidate pools.


 We went 20 years with this same concern being used as a basis for not making
 the list of candidates public.  It actually hurt Nomcom's work quite a bit,
 and making the list public has been massively helpful.
[MB] Exactly. [/MB]

 There needs to be limits to public review, which is why it makes sense for
 Nomcom deliberations to be private.  But there is also a need for
 appropriate amounts of public accountability.


 d/
 --
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

2013-03-06 Thread Michael StJohns

At 08:50 AM 3/6/2013, Jari Arkko wrote:


I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we take.

I agree of course that right now we have an issue to solve. I agree that we 
should do whatever to complete the current process, and that waiting for a 
reorganisation would be a bad idea. 

However, given that I feel that I've been through varying levels of similar 
issues for last couple of years, I would also like to ensure that we do 
something more permanent. 


Once upon a time we contemplated allowing the Nomcom - in rare circumstances - 
to nominate someone for a short term of 1 year (e.g. probation).  This was part 
of the discussion some 13-16 years ago when we were expanding the IESG and 
dealing with some term imbalances and trying to figure out whether giving 
someone a 3 year term to even out the number of nominees per year was what we 
should be doing.

Unfortunately, while the 3 year term stuff made it into 3777, the 1 year term 
stuff didn't.  It's too bad as it may have been a useful option here (or not - 
I haven't reviewed the list of transport AD candidates).

I would suggest that it's probably time to re-convene the how do we select 
people working group.  Given the number of issues - recall, IAOC, this, 
ineligible others  - we've encountered lately, I don't think just cutting and 
pasting a new RFC over 3777 to patch holes makes sense.

Mike

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Melinda Shore

On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
 Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.

I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).

Melinda

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD



On 3/6/2013 9:05 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:

On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.


I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).



It has always been an election process.  Nomcom does the voting.

Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their Nomcom 
interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most appealing light. 
They've decided they want the job, so they seek to convince Nomcom to 
choose them.


The process is designed to mitigate organized electioneering, attack of 
other candidates, and the rest of the hype and mayhem that most/all of 
us detest.  And even penalizes candidates who engage in it.


So forgive me for indulging in a cliche'd reference, be we are merely 
haggling price here.


Price matters.  The methods used by a candidate matter.  But in this 
case, the document already is part of the process.  The only change 
would be in who gets to see it.


Arguments against having the community see it are limited to a concern 
about candidate privacy and a concern that it will engender public 
commentary about the person.


The first doesn't make any sense; what specifically needs to be kept 
private from the questionnaire response?


The second is mitigated by simply prohibiting it.

d/

--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport AreaDirector)

2013-03-06 Thread Noel Chiappa

 From: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com

 is this something that the IETF should be involved with or is it better
 handled by those who are developping LTE etc? 

I would _like_ to think it's better done by the IETF, since congestion
control/response more or less has to be done on an end-end basis, so trying
to do it in any particular link technology is not necessarily useful (unless
the entire connection path is across that technology). But...

 From: Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com

 There is a huge cross layer optimization issue between 3gpp and the
 ietf. It is worse than you can imagine, highly akin to how the industry
 moved passed the ietf with Nat.

Well, I sort of see the analogy with NAT. But rather than rathole on a
non-productive discussion of similarities and causes, I think it's more
useful/fruitful to examine your point that people are doing all sorts of
localized hacks in an attempt to gain competitive advantage.

Sometimes this is not a problem, and they are (rightly) responding to places
where the IETF isn't meeting needs (one good example is traffic directors in
front of large multi-machine web servers).

But how much good going it alone will do in this particular case (since
congestion control is necessarily end-end) is unclear, although I guess the
'terminate (effectively) the end-end connection near the border of the
provider's system, and do a new one to the terminal at the user's device'
model works. But there definitely is a risk of layers clashing, both trying to
do one thing...

Noel

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Bob Hinden

Hi,

 Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm suggesting 
 that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the 
 community can have additional information for providing feedback to the 
 Nomcom.

I agree with Dave on this.  

I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people I know, I 
can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It would help me if 
I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the 
nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and 
experience.

The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't 
know all of the candidates.

Bob

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

2013-03-06 Thread Joe Touch




On 3/5/2013 2:52 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

While the IETF is unique in many ways, the staff-volunteer issue
isn't all that unique. Many organizations face this. As one example,
organizations like IEEE and ACM struggle with this. (For example,
they have, over the years, delegated many functions in conference
management that used to be done by volunteers to paid staff.) Even
government regulatory bodies operate with a mixture of volunteer
labor (advisory councils) and paid staff. The solution space seems
rather constrained:

...

(2) Pay the person a salary while on leave from their home
institution/employer. As an example, NSF and DARPA do this for their
program managers. The employer still takes a hit and there's some risk
to the person that they won't get their job back, but it allows a larger
number of individuals to participate.


In the US government version of this (IPA), the person remains 
officially an employee of their home institution; it's a grant/contract 
to the home institution.


So I would break this into two sub-categories:

a) pay the person while on leave

b) pay the home institution for the person's work as a
contract/grant
(this is closer to how the NSF, DARPA, and other
US govt visiting positions work)

They work out quite differently; the latter means you're paying 
overhead, and can be quite costly but might be more attractive.


Joe

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Bob,

This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to give 
feedback on someone
you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?

I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give 
feedback on them (and that is
precisely as it should be).

--
Eric

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob 
Hinden
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Hi,

 Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm suggesting 
 that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the 
 community can have additional information for providing feedback to the 
 Nomcom.

I agree with Dave on this.  

I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people I know, I 
can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It would help me if 
I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the 
nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and 
experience.

The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't 
know all of the candidates.

Bob

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Sam,

Thanks for raising this issue. The issue about what kind of candidates are 
suitable for the task.

However, even if you asked us to not reply to your mail on the public list, I 
wanted to do it for one aspect. I have a suggestion that relates to who you are 
directing your criticism to. You've been a part of the nomination process, you 
know it is not easy. 

When it comes to feedback on candidates and the tasks, noncom does need your 
feedback. Please tell them what you think.

But when it comes to the off in the wilderness part, I have a very strong 
opinion. Please do not take it out on the noncom, confirming bodies, or the 
process. I think the buck stops in this particular situation with the IESG, 
whose requirements they are following. Just like when the spec is wrong, you do 
not blame the vendor. And yes, we at the IESG do see this as a serious 
situation. And we have taken steps to explain the situation to the community, 
arrange an opportunity to discuss what we should do, and, I believe, eventually 
we will revise the requirements and let the nomination process complete. I 
actually believe bringing the issue up to the community is a good thing, rather 
than having the noncom, the IESG, or the confirming bodies just making a 
decision without telling you about the circumstances. We are obviously open to 
feedback on how all this should be done, particularly when this is a new 
situation for all of us. But I just wanted to say that if you have criticism on 
the overall situation, the right place to send feedback is the IESG. You can 
start with me, I am committed to resolving this somehow. I need all my team 
members in place :-)

Thanks,

Jari

Re: Nomcom Reports

Yes they are useful and yes we should keep making them.

Thanks,

Jari

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread John C Klensin



--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 09:35 -0800 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:

...
 It has always been an election process.  Nomcom does the
 voting.
 
 Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their
 Nomcom interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most
 appealing light. They've decided they want the job, so they
 seek to convince Nomcom to choose them.

I believe it is still possible to have a candidate who is
willing to take a position out of a sense of obligation to the
community rather than wanting the job.  Such a candidate might
include information, including reflections on the position and
possible other candidates, in a questionnaire that should
absolutely not be made public.  Pushing candidates in directions
that either require questionnaire disclosure or that cause the
community to wonder why a particular candidate would not
disclose discourages such willing but don't actually want the
job candidacies in the future.  I suggest that is not in the
interest of the community, YMMD.

Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
(presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential
material such as future job prospects or even plans within the
organization for which he or she currently works.  Again, if the
candidate can't be assured that information will be kept
confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially
discourage candidates who have information of that type that
then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom.

I suggest that is is not in the interest of the community to
discourage candidates in that sort of position either.  Again,
YMMD.

...
 Arguments against having the community see it are limited to a
 concern about candidate privacy and a concern that it will
 engender public commentary about the person.
 
 The first doesn't make any sense; what specifically needs to
 be kept private from the questionnaire response?

Candidate privacy in the examples I've given above may extend
to organizational privacy or issues that could jeopardize the
candidate's job.

To put something Sam (I think) said in a slightly different
light, we can made the process of being a candidate (and giving
the Nomcom whatever information it might want or need)
sufficiently unpleasant that the only people who will offer
their names are those who really, really, want the jobs, perhaps
because possessing one of those seats would be a good industry
move for their companies. Maybe eliminating candidacies from
those who would be qualified and willing to do the jobs but who
dislike the public disrobing, or eliminating anyone whose
companies are willing to support them in IETF leadership roles
but don't see corporate advantage in having them in those
positions, would be an acceptable tradeoff against disclosure of
questionnaires, job details, etc.  I just don't happen to think
so, but I gather that you disagree.

 The second is mitigated by simply prohibiting it.

That prohibition will work because there has never been a
whispering campaign in the IETF.  Never.

john

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread John E Drake

Eric,

This was exactly the point I made earlier in an email to Dave Crocker.

Irrespectively Yours,

John


 -Original Message-
 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
 Eric Gray
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:59 PM
 To: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net
 Cc: ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 
 Bob,
 
   This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to
 give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might
 have to say about themselves?
 
   I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give
 feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).
 
 --
 Eric
 
 -Original Message-
 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
 Bob Hinden
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM
 To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
 Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 
 Hi,
 
  Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm
 suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the
 community, so the community can have additional information for
 providing feedback to the Nomcom.
 
 I agree with Dave on this.
 
 I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people I
 know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It
 would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with
 their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and
 their qualifications and experience.
 
 The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people
 don't know all of the candidates.
 
 Bob

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Eric,

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
 Bob,

 This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to give 
 feedback on someone
 you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?

 I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give 
 feedback on them (and that is
 precisely as it should be).
[MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can
evaluate nominees from the questionnaires then?

Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone
you likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or
you have forgotten some things.  [/MB]

 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob 
 Hinden
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM
 To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
 Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

 Hi,

 Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm suggesting 
 that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the 
 community can have additional information for providing feedback to the 
 Nomcom.

 I agree with Dave on this.

 I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people I know, 
 I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It would help me 
 if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of 
 the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and 
 experience.

 The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't 
 know all of the candidates.

 Bob

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Mary,

There's a difference between evaluating someone based on what they said 
(as you
point out is part of the NomCom's job) and evaluating someone based on what 
somebody else
said about what they said.

If - in the latter case - someone offering feedback based strictly on 
what a candidate
had to say about themselves was completely up-front about that, then the NomCom 
could try
to factor that in when considering the feedback.

I don't think that it is a good idea to try to rely on people to do 
this, nor do I think it is 
completely obvious how someone on the NomCom could necessarily arrive at a 
really good
way to factor that in.

Your second point is certainly valid.  There is no doubt that a 
personal CV from each
candidate would help everyone.  So maybe we're just quibbling over exactly what 
sorts of
candidate responses it would be helpful to disclose.

:-)
--
Eric

-Original Message-
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:22 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
 Bob,

 This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able 
 to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have 
 to say about themselves?

 I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't 
 give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).
[MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can evaluate 
nominees from the questionnaires then?

Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone you likely 
don't know everything about what they have accomplished or you have forgotten 
some things.  [/MB]

 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf 
 Of Bob Hinden
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM
 To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
 Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

 Hi,

 Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm suggesting 
 that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the 
 community can have additional information for providing feedback to the 
 Nomcom.

 I agree with Dave on this.

 I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people I know, 
 I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It would help me 
 if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of 
 the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and 
 experience.

 The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't 
 know all of the candidates.

 Bob

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread John E Drake

Mary,

As a potential nominee I considered the questionnaire to be a barrier to entry 
and as a NomCom member I considered the questionnaire answers to be useless.  

Irrespectively Yours,

John


 -Original Message-
 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
 Mary Barnes
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:22 PM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 
 Eric,
 
 On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com
 wrote:
  Bob,
 
  This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able
  to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they
 might have to say about themselves?
 
  I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't
  give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).
 [MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can
 evaluate nominees from the questionnaires then?
 
 Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone
 you likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or
 you have forgotten some things.  [/MB]
 
  --
  Eric
 
  -Original Message-
  From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
  Of Bob Hinden
  Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM
  To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
  Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org
  Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 
  Hi,
 
  Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm
 suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the
 community, so the community can have additional information for
 providing feedback to the Nomcom.
 
  I agree with Dave on this.
 
  I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people
 I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It
 would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with
 their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and
 their qualifications and experience.
 
  The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most
 people don't know all of the candidates.
 
  Bob

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Bob Hinden

Eric,

On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote:

 Bob,
 
   This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to give 
 feedback on someone
 you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?
 
   I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give 
 feedback on them (and that is
 precisely as it should be).

If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I 
might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading 
their summary.  

Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with or 
don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that.

Bob

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Okay, thanks Bob.  This makes sense...

-Original Message-
From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:36 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote:

 Bob,

   This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to give 
 feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say 
 about themselves?

   I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give 
 feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).

If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I 
might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading 
their summary.  

Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with or 
don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that.

Bob

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
 Mary,

 There's a difference between evaluating someone based on what they 
 said (as you
 point out is part of the NomCom's job) and evaluating someone based on what 
 somebody else
 said about what they said.

 If - in the latter case - someone offering feedback based strictly on 
 what a candidate
 had to say about themselves was completely up-front about that, then the 
 NomCom could try
 to factor that in when considering the feedback.

 I don't think that it is a good idea to try to rely on people to do 
 this, nor do I think it is
 completely obvious how someone on the NomCom could necessarily arrive at a 
 really good
 way to factor that in.
[MB] Honestly, as it is now, the context for feedback is often totally
unknown to the Nomcom.  I can't see that someone offering feedback
based on public input from the nominee is any less credible that the
information that Nomcom gets now.

My point is that nominees providing this information makes it easier
for someone providing input to provide concrete context and adequate
detail to add value to the process.  Folks do not remember everything
that a person has done.  They usually only remember the most recent
things.  The process is quite flawed IMHO right now in terms of the
quality and quantity of input that nomcom must rely on to make their
decisions.
[/MB]

 Your second point is certainly valid.  There is no doubt that a 
 personal CV from each
 candidate would help everyone.  So maybe we're just quibbling over exactly 
 what sorts of
 candidate responses it would be helpful to disclose.
[MB] Take a look at the position questionnaires:
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/iesg-questionnaire
If I were to post my responses that I provided to this year's nomcom,
I would only need to make some minor changes in terms of anonymizing
and abstracting a few of my comments.  We can decide where to draw the
line in terms of what sections to provide, as well. If anyone does
have lots of concerns about this, it would make me wonder exactly how
they are positioning themselves to the nomcom.
[/MB]

 :-)
 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:22 PM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High

 Eric,

 On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
 Bob,

 This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able
 to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have 
 to say about themselves?

 I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't
 give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).
 [MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can evaluate 
 nominees from the questionnaires then?

 Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone you 
 likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or you have 
 forgotten some things.  [/MB]

 --
 Eric

 -Original Message-
 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
 Of Bob Hinden
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM
 To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
 Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

 Hi,

 Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm suggesting 
 that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the 
 community can have additional information for providing feedback to the 
 Nomcom.

 I agree with Dave on this.

 I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people I 
 know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It would 
 help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their 
 acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their 
 qualifications and experience.

 The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't 
 know all of the candidates.

 Bob

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Henning Schulzrinne

For what it's worth, candidates in professional organizations (IEEE, ACM, say) 
routinely publish basic information about themselves, typically of two kinds:

* what have they done before (both within the organization as well as other 
roles)

* vision for their position and the organization itself

Both are typically space-limited (around 200 words, I think) to force focus and 
to avoid making this a who can write a nicer autobiography contest.

This is not sufficient and doesn't replace personal knowledge or one-on-one 
interviews, but allows a broader range of people to comment. IEEE and ACM have 
member votes, so the need is a bit different, but I don't think this is that 
unusual nor particularly burdensome.

Henning

On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Eric Gray wrote:

 Okay, thanks Bob.  This makes sense...
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:36 PM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High
 
 Eric,
 
 On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote:
 
 Bob,
 
  This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to give 
 feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say 
 about themselves?
 
  I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give 
 feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).
 
 If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I 
 might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading 
 their summary.  
 
 Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with 
 or don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that.
 
 Bob

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Henning,

This is essentially what I meant in agree with Mary about including a 
personal CV.

However, even in the ACM/IEEE cases, there is a pronounced tendency to 
go with
the better write-up than with necessarily the best candidate.  That's because 
practically
nobody actually knows the candidates. 

 Also, the positions where this is done are not usually the sort of 
position that is 
likely to impact on the day-to-day job of the ACM/IEEE membership, even over 
the long
term - to the extent the effectiveness of an IESG candidate might.

Still, on the whole, I agree that this sort of write up would be more 
helpful than not.

--
Eric

-Original Message-
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:h...@cs.columbia.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:45 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

For what it's worth, candidates in professional organizations (IEEE, ACM, say) 
routinely publish basic information about themselves, typically of two kinds:

* what have they done before (both within the organization as well as other 
roles)

* vision for their position and the organization itself

Both are typically space-limited (around 200 words, I think) to force focus and 
to avoid making this a who can write a nicer autobiography contest.

This is not sufficient and doesn't replace personal knowledge or one-on-one 
interviews, but allows a broader range of people to comment. IEEE and ACM have 
member votes, so the need is a bit different, but I don't think this is that 
unusual nor particularly burdensome.

Henning

On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Eric Gray wrote:

 Okay, thanks Bob.  This makes sense...
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:36 PM
 To: Eric Gray
 Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
 Importance: High
 
 Eric,
 
 On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote:
 
 Bob,
 
  This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to 
 give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to 
 say about themselves?
 
  I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give 
 feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).
 
 If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I 
 might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading 
 their summary.  
 
 Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with 
 or don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that.
 
 Bob

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Stephen Farrell



On 03/06/2013 05:05 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
 On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
 Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.
 
 I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process

Speaking as someone who's filled in these things and both been
selected and not, but never been on nomcom, I'd be against making
'em public, so +1 to Melinda and others on that.

I think that'd lead to less honest/open answers as has been
pointed out. One example of that not noted so far is that I've
in the past told nomcom pick the incumbent if he's re-upping
and I think publishing responses would likely mean this would
either never be said or always be said and neither's as good as
it being said in private IMO.

That's just an example, I agree with pretty much all the
reasons folks have stated for not publishing these responses.

S.

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

2013-03-06 Thread Spencer Dawkins


On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

On this specific point ...


Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
(presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential
material such as future job prospects or even plans within the
organization for which he or she currently works.  Again, if the
candidate can't be assured that information will be kept
confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially
discourage candidates who have information of that type that
then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom.


I've seen at least one Nomcom questionnaire that fell into this 
category, so I's suggest that John's point is worth keeping in mind.


Spencer

How do they select people (was: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)

2013-03-06 Thread SM


Hi Mike,
At 08:44 06-03-2013, Michael StJohns wrote:
I would suggest that it's probably time to re-convene the how do we 
select people working group.  Given the number of issues - recall, 
IAOC, this, ineligible others  - we've encountered lately, I don't 
think just cutting and pasting a new RFC over 3777 to patch holes makes sense.


There are some issues which may have to be addressed at some 
point.  Patching holes creates an incomprehensible BCP.


There are some interesting details in RFC 3777.  I don't know whether 
they have been exercised.  Anyway, the question is about how do they 
select people.  It has been mentioned previously that:


  One former chair pointed out that the NomCom moved pretty quickly
   from a model where a random sample of the community selects
   leadership based on personal experience to a model where the random
   sample of the IETF is expected to survey a large and increasing
   percentage of the total community in order to select leadership.

And:

  It is possible for either the Nomcom or a confirming body  to wedge
   the process in a way where it cannot proceed.

One item which is not mentioned is that public lynching of candidates 
should never be encouraged.


The Nominating and Recall Committees have the latitude to get the 
work done.  They are supposed to get the work done.  When the 
selection process reaches a point where a working group slot is 
necessary to poke at people who have accepted to work for free, is 
there something wrong.  When an impossible event turns out to be 
possible, is there something wrong?


Regards,
-sm

Re: Time zones in IETF agenda

2013-03-06 Thread Henrik Levkowetz


On 2013-02-27 10:20 Tim Chown said the following:
 On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
 
 I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
 IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
 in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
 local time zone *anywhere*.
 
 I would appreciate if the local time zone indication would be added
 like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda.
 
 So in this interesting discussion of UTC, Martin has actually made an
 excellent point.  Having UTC listings for the agenda would be very
 helpful, or an alternative agenda showing UTC.

Now available:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc


Best regards,

Henrik

Re: Time zones in IETF agenda

2013-03-06 Thread Henrik Levkowetz


On 2013-03-01 13:41 Mikael Abrahamsson said the following:
 So I guess one still has to keep track of daylight savings. Personally I 
 prefer to have local time for meetings, otherwise UTC is nice.

Local timezone indication is now available, calculated for the particular date
and time for each session, so will show daylight saving transitions correctly
too):

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda

Best regards,

Henrik

Re: How do they select people

2013-03-06 Thread joel jaeggli


On 3/6/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:

Hi Mike,
At 08:44 06-03-2013, Michael StJohns wrote:
I would suggest that it's probably time to re-convene the how do we 
select people working group.  Given the number of issues - recall, 
IAOC, this, ineligible others  - we've encountered lately, I don't 
think just cutting and pasting a new RFC over 3777 to patch holes 
makes sense.


There are some issues which may have to be addressed at some point.  
Patching holes creates an incomprehensible BCP.


There are some interesting details in RFC 3777.  I don't know whether 
they have been exercised.  Anyway, the question is about how do they 
select people.  It has been mentioned previously that:


  One former chair pointed out that the NomCom moved pretty quickly
   from a model where a random sample of the community selects
   leadership based on personal experience to a model where the random
   sample of the IETF is expected to survey a large and increasing
   percentage of the total community in order to select leadership.

And:

  It is possible for either the Nomcom or a confirming body  to wedge
   the process in a way where it cannot proceed.

One item which is not mentioned is that public lynching of candidates 
should never be encouraged.
Or the nomcom unless you want to insure that the pool of volunteers 
shrinks in the the future.
The Nominating and Recall Committees have the latitude to get the work 
done.  They are supposed to get the work done. When the selection 
process reaches a point where a working group slot is necessary to 
poke at people who have accepted to work for free, is there something 
wrong.  When an impossible event turns out to be possible, is there 
something wrong?


Regards,
-sm

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
 On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

 On this specific point ...


 Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
 (presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
 confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential
 material such as future job prospects or even plans within the
 organization for which he or she currently works.  Again, if the
 candidate can't be assured that information will be kept
 confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially
 discourage candidates who have information of that type that
 then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom.


 I've seen at least one Nomcom questionnaire that fell into this category, so
 I's suggest that John's point is worth keeping in mind.
[MB] I think that we can evaluate the questionnaires and decide how
much of what is currently provided to Nomcom needs to be public.  Just
as there is a section where nominees can include information that
doesn't get shared with IAB, they could certainly do so with
information they don't want shared with the community.  And, again, my
suggestion was that this information only be available on the Nomcom
wiki as is the public list of nominees, as opposed to publishing on an
open website or mailing list.  [/MB]

 Spencer

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
 On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

 On this specific point ...


 Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
 (presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
 confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential
 material such as future job prospects or even plans within the
 organization for which he or she currently works.  Again, if the
 candidate can't be assured that information will be kept
 confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially
 discourage candidates who have information of that type that
 then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom.


 I've seen at least one Nomcom questionnaire that fell into this category, so
 I's suggest that John's point is worth keeping in mind.
[MB] I think that we can evaluate the questionnaires and decide how
much of what is currently provided to Nomcom needs to be public.  Just
as there is a section where nominees can include information that
doesn't get shared with IAB, they could certainly do so with
information they don't want shared with the community.  And, again, my
suggestion was that this information only be available on the Nomcom
wiki as is the public list of nominees, as opposed to publishing on an
open website or mailing list.  [/MB]

 Spencer

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:


 On 03/06/2013 05:05 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
 On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
 Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.

 I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process

 Speaking as someone who's filled in these things and both been
 selected and not, but never been on nomcom, I'd be against making
 'em public, so +1 to Melinda and others on that.

 I think that'd lead to less honest/open answers as has been
 pointed out. One example of that not noted so far is that I've
 in the past told nomcom pick the incumbent if he's re-upping
 and I think publishing responses would likely mean this would
 either never be said or always be said and neither's as good as
 it being said in private IMO.
[MB]  As someone whose filled out these things way more times than I
want to admit and never been appointed, but who has chaired nomcom, I
think making the questionnaires (at least a portion thereof) would add
value to the process.  Personally, I would question the motives of
someone that didn't think at least a portion of the questionnaire
could be shared with the community.   I took a quick look at the
questionnaire I filled out for this year's nomcom and there's only a
couple comments way down in the questionnaire that I would need to
edit to feel comfortable with making the questionnaire available to
the community - I would need to generalize some things with specific
details. The questionnaire is not the only way one should be providing
input to the Nomcom, and one could certainly include the comment you
mention in a portion of the questionnaire that wouldn't get published
or send them an email. [/MB]

 That's just an example, I agree with pretty much all the
 reasons folks have stated for not publishing these responses.

 S.

Re: Time zones in IETF agenda

2013-03-06 Thread Martin Rex

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
 
 On 2013-02-27 10:20 Tim Chown said the following:
  On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
  
  I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
  IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
  in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
  local time zone *anywhere*.
  
  I would appreciate if the local time zone indication would be added
  like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda.
  
  So in this interesting discussion of UTC, Martin has actually made an
  excellent point.  Having UTC listings for the agenda would be very
  helpful, or an alternative agenda showing UTC.
 
 Now available:
 
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc


The agenda that I actually use (and prefer by a significant margin)
is this one:  http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/

Since I don't live in a DST-less UTC timezone myself, I will have to
convert (for the purpuse of plannying my remote participation) the
listed times in both, the traditional agendas and any agenda that
uses UTC time.  I actually prefer the agendas with local time.


The little thing that I would appreciate is really an indication of
the local time zone on *ALL* published agendas.  Since the IETF-86
agenda include a code sprint event on Saturday, which as I understand
is still EST(-05:00), while the rest of IETF-86 happens in EDT(-04:00),
so there is no longer a single timezone for the entire agenda.

How about adding the timezone info after each day's name?

e.g.:

  SATURDAY, March 9, 2013  (EST -05:00)
  0930-1800  Code Sprint - Grand Sierra A


  SUNDAY, March 10, 2013  (EDT -04:00)
  1100-1900  IETF Registration - Caribbean Registration


-Martin

Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport AreaDirector)

2013-03-06 Thread Masataka Ohta

John E Drake wrote:

 See also:  
 http://www.akamai.com/html/about/press/releases/2012/press_091312.html

It seems to me that Akamai is doing things which must be
banned by IETF.

Akamai IP Application Accelerator
http://www.atoll.gr/media/brosures/FS_IPA.pdf
Packet Loss Reduction
Application performance is also affected
by packet loss, which may be particularly
troublesome when traffic traverses
international network paths. IP Application
 ^^
Accelerator uses a variety of advanced
^^
packet loss reduction techniques, including
^^^
forward error correction and optional packet

replication to eliminate packet loss.

Masataka Ohta

Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

2013-03-06 Thread Sam Hartman

 Jari == Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes:

Jari Sam, Thanks for raising this issue. The issue about what kind
Jari of candidates are suitable for the task.

Jari However, even if you asked us to not reply to your mail on the
Jari public list, I wanted to do it for one aspect. I have a
Jari suggestion that relates to who you are directing your
Jari criticism to. You've been a part of the nomination process,
Jari you know it is not easy.

Jari When it comes to feedback on candidates and the tasks, noncom
Jari does need your feedback. Please tell them what you think.

Jari But when it comes to the off in the wilderness part, I have
Jari a very strong opinion. Please do not take it out on the
Jari noncom, confirming bodies, or the process. I think the buck
Jari stops in this particular situation with the IESG, whose
Jari requirements they are following. Just like when the spec is
Jari wrong, you do not blame the vendor. 

Jari, I could not disagree more.  Evaluating community feedback on the
qualifications provided by the IESG is specifically the nomcom's
responsibility.  It's quite clear the buck stops with the nomcom in RFC
3777 not with the IESG.

I shall quote the related sections of the RFc for you:

  The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
  to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the
  candidate that is nominated to fill each position.

...
   10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the
   desired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and
   the call for nominees.

...
   nomination must include the set of skills or expertise the
   nominator believes the nominee has that would be desirable.

...

   12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
   understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
   qualifications required to fill the open positions.

   The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating
   committee consults with a broad base of the IETF community for
   input to its deliberations.  In particular, the nominating
   committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open
   positions matches its understanding of the qualifications desired
   by the IETF community.

...

   14. The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their
   candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position
   and testifying as to how each candidate meets the qualifications
   of an open position.

(***note qualifications not expertise***)

   For each candidate, the testimony must include a brief statement
   of the qualifications for the position that is being filled,
   which may be exactly the expertise that was requested.  If the
   qualifications differ from the expertise originally requested a
   brief statement explaining the difference must be included.

Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)

Martin,

An article like this is the best reason why we should never finally resolve the
buffer bloat issue: Doing that would take away the opportunity for
generations of researcher to over and over regurgitate the same proposed
improvements and gain PhDs in the process.

I mean the Internet wold be like math without fermats last theorem.
Have you seen how disenfranchised mathematicians are now ? Its worse than the 
mood at
Kennedy Space center without a shuttle program (to bring the discussion back to
relevant aspects of IETF Orlando).

Sorry. could'nt resist.

I was actually happy about using some of those UDP based flow control reliable
transports in past years when i couldn't figure out how to fix the TCP stack of
my OSs. Alas, the beginning of the end of TCP is near now anyhow with RTCweb 
deciding
to use browser/user-level based SCTP over UDP stacks instead of OS-level TCP. 

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:41:35AM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
 Bob Braden wrote:
  On 3/4/2013 10:20 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
   I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an 
   educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where 
   does it apply? ... :-) 
  
  Ouch. Because without it (as we learned the hard way in the late 1980s) \
  the Internet may collapse and provide essentially no service.
  
 It is PR like this one:
 
   http://www.fujitsu.com/global/news/pr/archives/month/2013/20130129-02.html
 
 That gets me worried about folks might try to fix the internet
 mostly due to the fact that they really haven't understood what
 is already there any why.
 
 -Martin

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, eck...@cisco.com
Cisco NSSTG Systems  Technology Architecture
SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy!

Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 07:52:56AM +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
 On Mar 4, 2013, at 19:44, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
  The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport
  protocols that need to do congestion control.   Further, the (current)
  split of work means that all of the groups that need congestion
  oversight would be cared for by the position that is currently becoming
  empty as Wes leaves.
 
 Also, other areas frequently build protocols that need review from a 
 congestion control perspective (do they back of under loss, can they even 
 detect loss, etc.)
 
 Inside the area, there is typically enough CC clue applied by the TSV 
 community as a whole. It's outside the area where the TSV AD as a person gets 
 involved a lot.
 
 Lars

Sure, but that could equally well be seen as a problem of the way how the
IESG chooses to perform its business. There are enough experts that
could consult whether its in role of directorates or else. They may just
not want to take on an AD role.

And there are a lot more TSV friction points with whats going on in the IETF
than just CC.

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

+1 +1 +1

On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 08:24:58PM +, Scott Brim wrote:
 On 03/03/13 15:14, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca allegedly
 wrote:
 To be considered qualified the candidate needed to:
   a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case)
 
 (I just want to nit on this: I hope people don't think TSV is just about
 congestion.)

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

2013-03-06 Thread S Moonesamy


Dear IAB and NomCom 2012,

In a message dated February 6, the NomCom Chair requested feedback 
from the IETF Community for the TSV Area Director position.  In a 
message dated March 3, the IETF Chair mentioned that it might be that 
no candidate has yet been found that meets the specific IESG-provided 
requirements.  There wasn't any further communication about the subject.


BCP 10 describes an advice and consent model.  What may have been 
missed, in my opinion, is that the action or non-action is a 
significant change to the model.


This is a highly unusual situation.  I suggest that the appropriate 
party takes any corrective action it deems fit or else there will be 
requests for changes to the model in future.


Please note that I do not have any affiliation in common with anyone 
impacted by the appointment decision or any direct or indirect 
financial interest in the outcome.


Regards,
S. Moonesamy

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 03:55:39PM +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
 only if the Y directorate reviews all IDs going through the IESG. Which in 
 itself is a scaling issue. It may work for some topics, but things will fall 
 through the cracks for various reasons. 
 
 IMO congestion control is important and fundamental enough that the IESG 
 itself needs to have the knowledge. YEs, I'm biased.

Searching for Congestion Control Expert on google shows no real matches at 
all before
this discussion thread. I could find Unicorn expert though. I wonder if those 
would make a good TSV AD.

Would you mind to describe how to evaluate someone to meet the bar to be CCE in 
your opinion ? 
I ask because starting to populate this new term into googles cache doesn't 
mean its clear
whether the community would even have a common idea of what it would mean. 
Independent of
whether the community thinks its a good bar for TSV-AD in the first place.

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director