Let me underscore this. We've spent months being explicit that we
were focusing on the administrative aspect of our activities, and
*not* the whole IETF (in any of its many possible values).
We *can* (and will!) expand the scope if needed, but for practical
purposes, that can't be undertaken lightly, and I'm going to say it'll
require an explicit decision to do so.
Leslie.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
an unincorporated organization). But that's distinct from the idea of
incorporating the support function, and is NOT described in the current
document.
Correct, and I wrote carelessly.
If people want that possibility described, please speak up - Carl has
the
pen ready....
Yes that would be helpful.
Well, I don't agree. I think it would defocus the discussion (which
is about putting the IETF's administration onto a business-like
basis). IMHO the only case in which we should discuss the wider
option is if the newtrk WG proposes changes in the standards process
that would make such a thing necessary.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf