----- Original Message -----
From: "SM" <sm@resistor.net>
To: "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:34 PM

> Hi Ted,
> At 11:46 08-11-2012, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >Thinking a bit about the directions that conversation took, I think
> >there is both a relatively simple answer to Andrew's question and a
> >much larger piece of context that need to be teased out of the
> >discussion.  The relatively simple answer is that we don't just use
> >common sense any more because we don't want to trust individuals as
> >much as we used to.  That lack of trust isn't directed at the current
> >IESG, IAOC,  or IAB, but at future incumbents.  We have come to the
>
> The five second sound bite is "why don't you trust your leaders"?
>
> >idea that allowing a current set of office-holders to make ad hoc
> >decisions implies that all later incumbents will share that ability.
>
> Yes.
>
> >Since we don't know those later incumbents (how could we?), we don't
> >trust them; since we don't trust them, we don't want to cede to them
a
> >power that might later get abused.  So we attempt to use structure
and
> >process to restrict those unknown future incumbents.  That's
> >interesting in part because we believe in precedent enough to worry
> >that ceding decision making will grant to later officer holders
> >equivalent power, but we don't believe in it enough to believe it
will
> >guide what the later officer holders will do.  That, again, likely
> >stems from a lack of trust.
>
> It's a bit more complicated than that.  If there is a perceived lack
> of transparency, process may be viewed as safeguarding the
> individual's interest.  I once had a chat with an IETF participant
> who asked what to do as the WG Chair took a bad decision.  There were
> two options:
>
>   (i)  The Standards Process
>
>   (ii) Talk to the person
>
> The person did not mention Option (ii).  There is a newcomers'
> tutorial where people are lectured about the marvellous Standards
> Process.  There is very little socialization in the IETF.  The I*
> bodies are lacking when it comes to communication
> skills.  Unfortunately, when the I* bodies communicates the community
> asks "why are you bothering us with this"?

I agree that socialization and communication are weak in the IETF but
disagree as to the cause.  Socialization depends on communication and
there is a spectrum in communication from the richest, when I am
standing in front of you, looking you in the eye, to the poorest, a
tweet.

E-mail, the sine qua none of the IETF, is towards the poorer end of the
spectrum, so that as the work of the IETF has become dominated by
e-mail, with little happening face-to-face, so the socialization and
communication - except at the most technical level - has decreased.
Socialization breeds the idea of a common goal, a mission if you will.
If I know you and relate to you, then I am more willing to compromise,
to negotiate, to go the extra mile (such as at the weekend) or to give
up my pet concerns in order to produce a better standard.

Without such socialization, then work becomes dominated by other things
such as the bottom line, legal actions or the fear thereof, a lack of
trust and so on; and yes, we then need more process to ensure progress.
I think that the evolution of the IPR processes in the IETF would be a
good case study for this.

Tom Petch

> >I think that's where the larger context comes in.  The IETF is not
> >simply an engineering organization, it is a mission-based
> >organization.  Our mission is to make the Internet work and grow.
>
> Frankly, I don't know what the IETF is.
>
> >Belief in that mission is something built into the context of the
> >IETF, and it is part of what helps each of us guide our decisions
> >here.  Where some SDOs get compromises entirely by horse-trading,
many
> >of the compromises that let the IETF work by rough consensus actually
> >come about because of that shared mission.  We recognize that
> >compromise to get interoperability is a key part of what lets the
> >Internet continue to work and grow.  We both give our technical
> >insight to that mission and we subordinate our technical desires to
> >it.
>
> It is difficult to get people to compromise.
>
> >I suspect that some of the trust issues we have with imagined future
> >incumbents actually comes from a subconscious fear that we won't be
as
> >successful at passing on a belief in that mission as we have so far
> >been.  That may be because the current mechanisms are largely ad hoc
> >(as Joe's comments on mentoring hinted); it may be more free form
than
> >that.  To counter that concern, we may want to extend the methods we
> >already do have (Edu teams, newcomers socials, and so on) for longer
> >parts of the initial participation periods.  We may even want to
> >consider new ways of generating affiliation to our core goals.
> >However we do it, it seems likely that energy put into making sure
> >that the IETF's mission is part of each participant's understanding
of
> >their work will return benefits both to the IETF now and when those
> >unknown future incumbents take office.
>
> I was pleasantly surprised by the level of comments at yesterday's
> plenary.  The Edu team is absent except for a few hours a year.  The
> newcomers' social is IETF-centric.  I like the idea of extending the
> initial participation periods.
>
> I read the last sentence as building trust.  People might share your
> core goals if they "trust" you and they agree with the goals.  That's
> different from convincing them.  People put in energy if it is in
> their interest to do so.
>
> >Maintaining the power of the incumbents? Not important.  Maintaining
> >the current structures? Not important.  Change for change's sake?
Not
> >valuable.  Making sure the mission gets done?  Pretty much the only
> >thing that matters.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
>