[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: Please share your views in our first annual IETF community survey
From:       tom petch <daedulus () btconnect ! com>
Date:       2021-05-10 15:56:25
Message-ID: 609957A9.10607 () btconnect ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 09/05/2021 18:17, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Jared,
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:26 AM Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
>> If you have concerns feel free to email them to the IAB or I'd be happy to
>> schedule time with you with IAB hat on to discuss them.
>>
>> I will point out it was in the IAB minutes here:
>>
>> https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2021/iab-minutes-2021-04-21/
>>
>
> I'm not sure if this was the set of meeting minutes you meant to point to
> (I'm not seeing a helpful mention of "survey", just by searching for the
> character string), but more broadly, I understand this survey, coming from
> the IAB, to be squarely within the IAB's chartered responsibilities from
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2850.html#section-2:
>
>     (c) Standards Process Oversight and Appeal
> *   The IAB provides oversight of the process used to create Internet
>     Standards [BCP 9].*
>
>     The IAB serves as an appeal board for complaints of improper
>     execution of the standards process, with powers defined in [BCP 9].
>
> I'd have to say, as a former IAB member, I'm kind of pleased to see that
> the IAB was taking this action (this chartered responsibility was mostly
> about appeals in 2010-2013, when I was serving), but I understand why Tom
> might have been startled! I tend to respond to IETF surveys from Jay
> automatically, and wasn't thinking that it might be part of the IAB's
> oversight responsibility (the usual post-IETF surveys were usually
> discussed by the IESG when I was serving there).
>
> So, to the IAB, good job, and we're all (more) awake now!

Jared

Until I read the preceding paragraph, I had no idea that the IAB had 
anything to do with the survey.  To me it was an action by the admin 
part of the organisation getting information for its own benefit and 
treading on the toes of such as the IETF Chair and the IESG who were 
being bypassed.

So no, bad job IAB, you failed to communicate adequately IMHO and left 
me with the wrong impression, and a bad one, of the admin part of the 
IETF.  Checking the blog, I do see that the IAB gets a mention and that 
the survey is on behalf of the IESG but that passed me by, unlike the 
references to the admin side of the IETF which I picked up on several 
times in several places.  I cannot recall any mention of the IAB or IESG 
in the survey itself and while I was performing the survey, I was 
looking for why was this being done and who has initiated this process 
and sensing that that was colouring my answers.

The IAB says so little that an announcement from the IAB carries a lot 
of weight; I think that one would have been warranted in this case.

Tom Petch

> I just filled out the survey, and it seemed reasonable. I do wish there had
> been one or more places to provide explanations, which I remember is
> usually true for the post-IETF surveys. I assume something like this survey
> will be sent out again, if it turns out to be helpful, so that can be added
> next time.
>
>
>> Sent from my TI-99/4a
>>
>
> This is the best signature line I've seen in email for a while ... I always
> enjoy Warren Kumari's, but we don't chat as much as we used to chat. 😀
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]