Dave,
Let me respond to this, not from Harald's perspective, but from
that as a semi-outside observer who is, I think, as concerned as
you are, about wasting time and resources on non-critical-path
efforts and about the IESG, IAB, or their respective Chairs
going off half-cocked.
First, while I wasn't there, every report I've gotten from
people who were (including both those who were happy about it
and those who weren't), was that the outlines of this were
presented in plenary in Seoul and the general consensus was that
people should move ahead with this process, focusing on drawing
the administrative models and financial sources together as
first steps in rationalizing the IETF's relationships with its
professional support organizations. Nothing has appeared on
the IETF list, or in any other place that I'm following, that
would convince me that there is community consensus against
their proceeding, and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt has been
posted since February and hasn't seemed to draw much negative
attention either. We approve standards on far less
demonstration of consensus than that. We have some, I think
considerable, evidence that a large fraction of the participants
in the IETF have concluded that, while they want these external
administrative processes to run smoothly, efficiently, and well,
they lack the interest and/or expertise to want to be deeply
involved in them. Given that, what sort of public cheer do
think you is needed?
Whether or not it is critical path is, IMO, a separate question.
Even if one ignores the more general issues raised in RFC 3716
and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt (and without discussing their
relevancy or importance), we are in a situation in which we have
a shrinking resource base relative to costs. Neither the slope
of meeting attendance nor that of unrestricted contributions to
ISOC for the IETF is positive. While a number of improvements
have been made, most of the costs arise from a fixed base, e.g.,
fewer meeting attendees may mean lowered cookie costs, but
doesn't lower the significant meeting costs, much less all of
the other secretariat costs. In that environment, having
separate pools of funds, with no ability for the folks who the
IETF community holds responsible for keeping things going to
make priority decisions and move things around is, well, nuts.
And those financial structure issues could bring us grinding to
a halt -- or increase meeting fees to the point that they would
become a significant barrier to participation for some people.
I think that makes it critical path -- if we grind to a halt, or
reach the stage at which only the very well-supported or
professional standardizers can afford to participate, we are in
very bad trouble: certainly that situation wouldn't contribute
to our getting better substantive results out faster.
Of course, most of that is discussed in RFC 3716. If it wasn't
sufficiently clear, then people should have been complaining
about it on the IETF list before it was published as an RFC. My
recollection, although I may be confused, is that it was even
Last Called. Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't seen an
outpouring of comments and complaints about its content.
Just my opinion.
best,
john
--On Saturday, 05 June, 2004 16:13 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Harald,
HA> 2) However, responding to the point asked - what is being
hired now is a consultant to HA> help with the activity of
setting up the administrative structures we need for the IETF
at HA> this point in time. Not the permanent general manager
of the IETF administrative support HA> function.
This means that you are proceeding with the changes.
Forgive my inattention, but where is a copy of the specific
plan that was reviewed and approved by the IETF for these
structural changes, and when did the IETF approve it?
A separate question: To what extent is this effort taking
already-scarce IETF resources and serving as a distraction
from making the IETF produce better material in a more timely
fashion?
Clarifications would be appreciated.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>,
<fax:+1.866.358.5301>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf