this makes full sense (that the IETF community should have full access
to SOWs, contracts and addenda to contracts) - that is different than
saying that ALL correspondence should be posted on a public web site
so the wording needs to be carefully done
Scott
-----
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:00:43 -0500
To: sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu (Scott Bradner)
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: Transparency/Openness of the IAOC
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Hi Scott,
At 12:36 PM -0500 12/8/04, Scott Bradner wrote:
>> Actually, I think that the IAOC should post all correspondence
1/ I took "all correspondence" to mean "all correspondence"
But, when I said "all correspondence", I didn't mean _all_
correspondence... :-)
Okay, so this obviously needs to be cleaned up a bit.
What I'm after is that I think the IETF community should be able to
see the actual contracts that we make with our service organizations
and partners (maybe with some financial details omitted if
necessary). I also think that we should be able to see any official
addenda to the contracts. And, that we should be able to see
registered correspondence that is received from anyone who expresses
a grievance against us an/or threatens legal action, along with any
response that the IETF sends to those things.
For instance, we were sent a budget that included a proposed RFC
Editor cost of ~$800,000. This cost is based on a Statement of Work
(SOW) that was negotiated between the IAB and the RFC Editor. Do we
(the IETF community) have access to that SOW? (I don't actually know
the answer to this question, but I couldn't find it on a quick
perusal of the IAB and RFC Editor web pages). Personally, I think
that we should have access to that SOW and other similar documents.
Does that make sense?
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf