Subject: Re: mentoring programme desiderata (was: Re: a remark on "late outsiders")

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 21:01:56 -0800

Hi Stephen,
At 16:38 28-11-2016, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>But there are clearly two "directions" in this game, so
>what other aspects of good/effective IETF participation ought
>we consider in either direction?

Last Saturday, I attended an outreach session 
about the IETF.  The person doing the 
presentation about the IETF emphasized the 
face-to-face aspects, i.e. the meetings.  I made 
a comment about questions which should not even 
arise using a recent thread on ietf@ as an 
example.  There were some questions from the audience about mentoring.

Jari made the following comment [1] on this 
mailing list: "Some of this level setting should 
be made *very* clear particularly in the newcomer 
context, and I fear people are trying to be too 
nice at times to tell this particular 
truth…".  Is the level setting, if it is being done, clear enough?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wgchairs/current/msg14940.html

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 09:51:41 -0500

On 11/29/16, 8:03 AM, "WGChairs on behalf of Adam Roach"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>I agree with Melinda's point: the TLS situation isn't a good example for
>the point you're trying to make. It's not so much a matter of what
>result "she would like" as much as not allowing special interests to
>weaken the overall security model of the Internet (late, early, or

Attempting to marginalize operators as ³special interests² is dismissive
of the consumers of our work.
If deployers find a protocol to be undeployable, they will not deploy it.

The Internet is more diverse than individuals accessing public content, or
even peer to peer networking.

> 
>otherwise in the process). This isn't some ambiguous "reasonable people
>can disagree" kind of situation: we have clear guidance in the form of
>RFCs 1984, 2804, and 7258 that flatly disallow the IETF to consider the
>requests that were being made.

I¹d argue that those documents don¹t[1] apply to the use case of
enterprise-internal communication.
But making such an argument may require a new document.

Lee

[1] or shouldn¹t, if I missed a line of text

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:59:14 +0000

> enterprise-internal communication.

Don't we have some architectural guidance from some
body to the effect that one should design protocols
for the big-I Internet in case they prove to be
successful? :-)

But in any case:

1984/BCP200 definitely does apply to enterprise-internal
communications IMO.

2804 is questionable, yes.

7258/BCP188 seems quite relevant if one recalls the
"SSL added and removed here" slide and various other
now-documented attacks on enterprise internal n/ws.

And lastly, the context here is TLS, which also matters.

S.

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 10:07:17 -0500

From:  WGChairs <[email-masked]> on behalf of Kyle Rose
<[email-masked]>
Date:  Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:51 AM
To:  Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Cc:  Working Group Chairs <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: I am concerned about the "mentoring" person

> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Yoav Nir <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>>> > But don't bring the house down on someone because they've made a proposal.
>> 
>> The mailing list discussion had some of that. The discussion at the F2F
>> meeting did not.
> 
> I think this is worth highlighting. Given the acrimony on the list when this
> was initially raised, the discussion at the TLS session was remarkably polite,
> even friendly. I think everyone put their knives away when the case was
> presented in person. The technical arguments still won out, but the tone was a
> lot better.

I agree, and the presenters agreed. They said to me later that the WG
meeting was positive, and the conversations immediately following were very
helpful. I don¹t like ³the technical arguments still won out,² because it
was a case of competing use cases (better security versus the need for
troubleshooting), but I¹m satisfied with the result.

I¹ve also talked with them about how to participate effectively, some of
which they¹ve learned the hard way. I¹ve encouraged them to help each other
keep track of different work at the IETF; I think it would be healthier for
us if participants jumped in as something interested them, and then left to
go back to work when their issue was resolved.

There was one comment at the mike that I thought was hostile and
unconstructive: ³If I had any money at your bank I would definitely move
it.² That seemed calculated to chill participation from any enterprise.
Imagine the news article with that headline. One of the reasons enterprises
don¹t contribute is that they are concerned about public disclosure of
information that will lose them customers or investors. In this case, even
if pretty much all banks do what this one described, only the one who
described the problem would be hurt. We therefore lose participants from the
entire industry, and related industries, i.e., deployers.

Lee

[1] But consensus can change, as participants or conditions change. We need
to consider that, and be willing to check consensus again.

> Kyle

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:21:02 -0500

Lee,

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Lee Howard <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> From: WGChairs <[email-masked]> on behalf of Kyle Rose <
> [email-masked]>
> I think this is worth highlighting. Given the acrimony on the list when
> this was initially raised, the discussion at the TLS session was remarkably
> polite, even friendly. I think everyone put their knives away when the case
> was presented in person. The technical arguments still won out, but the
> tone was a lot better.
>
>
> helpful. I don’t like “the technical arguments still won out,” because it
> troubleshooting), but I’m satisfied with the result.
>
> I’ve also talked with them about how to participate effectively, some of
> which they’ve learned the hard way. I’ve encouraged them to help each other
> unconstructive: “If I had any money at your bank I would definitely move
> it.” That seemed calculated to chill participation from any enterprise.
> don’t contribute is that they are concerned about public disclosure of
> described the problem would be hurt. We therefore lose participants from
> the entire industry, and related industries, i.e., deployers.
>

The comment at the mic was mine and you did not quote me correctly.  It was
not meant in a hostile way and I don't appreciate you couching it as such,
turing it into more than it was.  I said it half joking and said something
more like they might have lost a few customers in the room.  The speaker
laughed a little. IT in the banking sector tends to have a thick skin and
I've worked with many in this sector.  This statement was just after
thanking them for coming, which I genuinely meant.  I was told by others I
was too nice (which I don't agree with) just following the session.  I have
spent quite a bit of my time helping them between meetings and providing
options for them.  I have also followed up with them since and they do
expect to attend the next meeting.

As an FYI, not all banks do what this one described.  This was discussed on
the TLS list which is also open to the public.

Thank you for helping them with the bar BoF, that was a suggestion I had
offered and let them know that nothing would stop them from holding one to
get ideas since they weren't ready with new proposals that would be enough
for a SAAG slot.  My intent in offering this suggestion was to guide them
in normal IETF operations as they were getting shot down on procedural
(appropriately) glitches in what they were asking.

I also helped them quite a bit with text that was contributed to a draft Al
and I are working on, their original text would have set off a firestorm on
the SAAG list and I thought it would be more helpful to put in the cycles
ahead of time and save them from that firestorm.

>
> Lee
>
> [1] But consensus can change, as participants or conditions change. We
> need to consider that, and be willing to check consensus again.
>
>
> Kyle
>
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:57:15 -0500

From:  Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date:  Friday, December 2, 2016 at 11:21 AM
To:  Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Cc:  Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>, Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>, Working
Group Chairs <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: I am concerned about the "mentoring" person

>> unconstructive: ³If I had any money at your bank I would definitely move it.²
>> That seemed calculated to chill participation from any enterprise. Imagine
>> the news article with that headline. One of the reasons enterprises don¹t
>> contribute is that they are concerned about public disclosure of information
>> that will lose them customers or investors. In this case, even if pretty much
>> all banks do what this one described, only the one who described the problem
>> would be hurt. We therefore lose participants from the entire industry, and
>> related industries, i.e., deployers.
> 
> laughed a little. IT in the banking sector tends to have a thick skin and I've
> worked with many in this sector.  This statement was just after thanking them
> for coming, which I genuinely meant.

I apologize for misquoting you; I did not write down your exact words, and
they aren¹t in the minutes (appropriately), and I can¹t seem to play the
audio recording right now. You can certainly correct me for misunderstanding
you. But I was not the only one who heard it as a strong rebuff and
discouragement from participating in the future; others had a common
misunderstanding.

So I take this as a lesson on the subject of mentoring (still on this
thread) to be careful with even good-natured jibes; even if we have a good
relationship with the person we¹re talking to, others may not know that, and
may think it was intended in a mean-spirited way.

Lee

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 21:28:57 -0500

Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device 

> On Dec 3, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Lee Howard <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Cc: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>, Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>, Working Group Chairs <[email-masked]>
>> There was one comment at the mike that I thought was hostile and unconstructive: “If I had any money at your bank I would definitely move it.” That seemed calculated to chill participation from any enterprise. Imagine the news article with that headline. One of the reasons enterprises don’t contribute is that they are concerned about public disclosure of information that will lose them customers or investors. In this case, even if pretty much all banks do what this one described, only the one who described the problem would be hurt. We therefore lose participants from the entire industry, and related industries, i.e., deployers. 
> 
> The comment at the mic was mine and you did not quote me correctly.  It was not meant in a hostile way and I don't appreciate you couching it as such, turing it into more than it was.  I said it half joking and said something more like they might have lost a few customers in the room.  The speaker laughed a little. IT in the banking sector tends to have a thick skin and I've worked with many in this sector.  This statement was just after thanking them for coming, which I genuinely meant. 
> 
> I apologize for misquoting you; I did not write down your exact words, and they aren’t in the minutes (appropriately), and I can’t seem to play the audio recording right now. You can certainly correct me for misunderstanding you. But I was not the only one who heard it as a strong rebuff and discouragement from participating in the future; others had a common misunderstanding.

As I left the session, I got a comment from 2 people that I was way too nice and the I had encouraged them to come back (which I have)... they thought that wasn't good as there was time wasted (I don't agree).  Point being is that people hear things differently.  Neither you nor the folks that had commented to me were aware of all the back end work I was doing on this.

Kathleen 
> 
> So I take this as a lesson on the subject of mentoring (still on this thread) to be careful with even good-natured jibes; even if we have a good relationship with the person we’re talking to, others may not know that, and may think it was intended in a mean-spirited way.
> 
> Lee
>