--On Thursday, October 07, 2004 7:53 AM +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
--On onsdag, oktober 06, 2004 17:50:04 -0400 John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:07 PM +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
I do think our thoughts run very much in parallel - I'll be
interested to hear more of why you think the "scenario O"
organizational format will make it hard to make those support
functions work.
Again a misunderstanding -- I don't see "Scenario O" as being
either better or worse in regard to the above than any other
scenario. My concern is with the definition of the Clerk
function, which is scenario-independent.
Thanks for the clarification!
I thought you might be pointing at the "one staff member -
rest of the work is contracts", which is a common feature to
scenarios C and O. If "all" that is required is to modify the
description of the "clerk" function, that needs to be done
before we call for interested parties - it is not on the
critical path to adopting one scenario for implementation
(although all clarification early is good).
Harald,
I think the "one staff member" story is unrealistic as well.
But, as you say, it is shared between C and O. It is, by some
creative definition-making, a bit easier for O because of the
possibility of borrowing/sharing staff from/with ISOC. But the
fact remains that the document calls out several more staff
roles than the one employee it asks for. Whether those staff
members are "employees" or contractors working on an individual
commitment basis (rather than hiring an organization to do the
job without picking individual personnel) is, IMO,
hair-splitting to make the staff look smaller, not a matter of
substance. It would be a matter of substance if it
significantly changed either costs of management effort, but
whether such people are employees or contractors doesn't help
with the management and may actually increase costs.
This is one of my more general objections to the report -- in
areas like the personnel one and how staffing roles are
presented, it appears (intentionally or not) to be organized in
such a way as to impede community understanding of what is being
proposed. But, again, this doesn't impact which Scenario is
more appropriate, nor does it change the urgency or priorities
of getting the relevant issues resolved.
john
b
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf