Subject: [Iasa20] Terminology agani: IETF LLC Executive Director versus IETF Executive Direector

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:26:25 -0500

With apologies to those who believe that what we call things and
positions makes little or no difference and to anyone who
believes that all the IETF needs to do is say something to have
that be universally understood in the way that we intend, I
continue to be troubled by our creating a situation in which, 

* Between the mid-1990s and a year ago, "IETF Executive
Director" referred to a Secretariat position with an active role
is IETF standards-making and similar activities

* Now and in the future, it refers to a management role in the
IETF LLC with, in principle at least, no direct contact in, or
influence wrt, the standards process.

I'm not concerned about whether we can fix our documents
consistently although the job may have been harder than some
people expected.  I am concerned about people who don't read
those documents and about documents and descriptions over which
the IETF has no direct control, mechanism for getting updates,
or even for identifying.

The first version of 4071bis included an elegant fix for the
problem: refer to the new position as the "IETF LLC Executive
Director", not the "IETF Executive Director".  IMO, if we
adopted the former terminology across all of the relevant
IAOS2.0 documents, it would largely solve the confusion implied
above -- if someone came looking for the "IETF Executive
Director" it would prompt an immediate question as to whether
they were referring to the old role with one new title or the
new role with a different title.

I gather because it was the easiest fix in the really short
term, the "IETF LLC Executive Director" title has been removed
from newer versions.   I think that is a mistake and we should
fix the other documents instead.

In the near term, I have no doubt about the ability of Alexa and
Portia to quickly identify any confusion about which title/role
is intended and make any needed corrections without making the
person who got it wrong feel insulted.  I am less confident
about the longer term as roles evolve and new people move into
them.   Looked at a different way, I think we would be much
better off if a search for, or mail to, "[email-masked]"
went to a page (or produced an automated replY) that said "are
you looking for the IETF LLC Executive Director (<address>) or
the Managing Director, IETF Secretariat (<address>)", followed
by a brief explanation, rather than sending everything to Portia
and making her sort it out... again, I'm confident that she
would be able to do that, but she shouldn't have to.

thanks for reading and thinking about this,
    john

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:25:39 +0000

Thanks for your feedback, John. As I noted in a separate email, the introduction of LLC in IETF LLC Executive Director in 4071bis was not intentional but was in error. All of our documents, even during the BOF before the WG was formed, have used the term IETF Executive Director. 

Jason

On 12/18/18, 11:33 AM, "iasa20 on behalf of John C Klensin" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    

    

    
    _______________________________________________
    iasa20 mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:34:22 -0500

--On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 17:25 +0000 "Livingood, Jason"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks for your feedback, John. As I noted in a separate
> email, the introduction of LLC in IETF LLC Executive Director
> in 4071bis was not intentional but was in error. All of our
> documents, even during the BOF before the WG was formed, have
> used the term IETF Executive Director. 

Jason, and I should probably have been explicit about that.   At
the same time, sometimes errors sometimes lead to brilliant
solutions.  I know that "IETF Executive Director" has been use
all along but, as you know, have been concerned about the "reuse
old title for something else" aspect of it since I first
noticed.  I certainly did not think of inserting "LLC" in that
string as a solution, but, in retrospect, as we have discussed
off-list, I think it would solve a problem that I, at least, see
as significant.

(and sorry about the typo in the subject line)
  thanks
     john

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:27:50 -0500

John, at this point I believe you are in the rough. I hope that isn't
disheartening because we value your feedback very much, but this is not
something I think we should spend more time debating. best, Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:52:13 +0100

John,

> On 18 Dec 2018, at 17:26, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

If there’s something that the Portia will take up, that’s okay.  If there’s something she’s leaving behind, she can say that.  It’s not that painful.  Let’s not create tortuous terms when simpler ones will do.

Eliot

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:03:37 -0500

Joe,

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I.  However...

I have so far heard from no one on this topic other than authors
of the document.  Noting that there was only about five hours
between when my note was posted and when you announced your
conclusion, that you "predicted" I was in the rough nearly six
hours before I posted my note to the list, and that no one other
than authors of 4071bis has so far commented on this issue
either on or offline, are you, as one of those authors, making a
WG consensus call and trying to shut down discussion on behalf
of the WG Chairs (one of whom is also a co-author of the
document) on the basis of comments or the lack thereof from the
WG?

Just curious.
    john

--On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 16:27 -0500 Joseph Lorenzo Hall
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John, at this point I believe you are in the rough. I hope
> that isn't disheartening because we value your feedback very
> much, but this is not something I think we should spend more
> time debating. best, Joe
>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 15:27:34 -0800

John,

> On Dec 18, 2018, at 2:03 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Joe,
> 

On a different thread, I think I said I was fine with using the name “IETF Executive Director” for the LLC position.

Bob

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 05:58:18 +0200

I support clarifications always, so the best is "IETF LLC Executive
Director ",

AB