ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Transition status (was Re: ISO 3166 mandatory?)

2008-02-22 13:19:32
I'll agree, too. We had some challenges getting the RUCUS mailing list up and running and then getting the web archives of the list up and running but the support folks were great to work with and got things sorted out rapidly.

Regards,
Dan

On Feb 22, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

My $.02 -- the new list software being used was using a new version
of Mailman that was stripping DKIM signatures out (which will be
fixed in later versions of Mailman). I contacted the support folks with
a config patch to stop doing that and it was implemented a day later.
I'd say that's pretty damn impressive.

       Mike

Dave Crocker wrote:
Bill Fenner wrote:

On 2/20/08, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:

 How much more of this will it take before you conclude that we
 have a problem?

John,

  Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like a very extreme
response to me.  (Unless the expected answer is "A lot")




Since a) I'm a ready critic of anything IETF, and b) since John and I have tended to agree about IETF operational problems, here's my own view on the
current status of the transition:

    Seems to be going pretty well and maybe even excellent.

(My grammar engine tried to write 'excellently' but failed.)

We flogged the issue of the strategic approach to changing IETF operations, back when it was moved from CNRI. While I thought, and think, that the strategic issues were handled badly by the IETF -- no matter what criticisms of CNRI one might subscribe to -- that ship has long sailed, so current -- hmmm. pun.
current.  get it? -- concerns ought to focus on current operations.

I was taught a long time ago to use a different model for operations quality assessment than for engineering quality assessment. The difference is due to the jobs having different types and degree of control over output, as well as tending to have differences in rewards. Engineers are usually praised with praise. Operations (and especially administration) is usually "praised" by a low complaint rate. It is easy to appreciate good engineering. All too often, folks fail to communicate appreciation of good operations, but I think the IETF community has been better than average in expressing appreciation of IETF
operations staff.

The cost of making a transition like this be nearly flawless would be very high and the sequence would be very slow, since it would include massive amounts of pre-testing and careful, iterative consultation with IETF management and/or the IETF community. The IETF doesn't run on that kind of budget or schedule, so my own criteria for a transition like this are: 1) is a problem due to someone's outright thoughtlessness or silliness, or 2) is the recovery from a transition
problem handled badly -- for any reasonable definition of badly.

I would not expect inherited tools to have been documented well or written for optimal portability. So I'd expect the tools to present some challenges. Equally, I'd expect new staff to demonstrate a learning curve, and that means rough edges. Given that this is the IETF's second change in operations administration in a very short time, I'd expect the current transition to be
particularly difficult.

The number, type and rate of transition problems hasn't struck me as all that remarkable. Maybe low; maybe not. Certainly hasn't seemed high. To me, it is more important to ask how the problems that have occurred have been handled, and the handling has seemed quite good, both in the details and the tone. Fixed quickly and with whatever adjustments as are needed to minimize damage -- as
opposed to inconvenience -- to those affected in the IETF community.

If there are specific, higher-level changes to the transition or to basic operations that ought to occur, we probably ought to see them raised individually.

d/


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     dyork(_at_)voxeo(_dot_)com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com




_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf