--On 12. september 2004 12:19 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
To further complicate things, I personally don't think the IETF
has yet figured out enough about what it really wants from the
secretariat part of the function and reached enough consensus on
that to justify any RFP-writing. In this respect, the material
in The Report seems to me to be inadequate unless the definition
of what the IETF wants from the secretariat is "whatever the
IESG or its leadership decide they want on a given day".
permit me to respectfully disagree......
The things that we need done in the "clerk's office" aren't actually that
novel. It's basic workplan management and document management, for the most
part. Scale and the responsiveness of participants may be different from
other organizations - but not THAT different.
And there's a whole lot of things other organizations do (outreach,
exhibitions, membership management, dues processing) that we simply don't
do.
Granted, we've grown a thicket of tradition and bizarre quirks over the
years (for instance, we have archives of old I-Ds, and archive our mailing
lists, but have no archives of old WG charters), but some of these are
things that could benefit from a real "why do you need this?" look, and
others are relatively easily implementable on more-or-less standard
processing tools (I believe).
I suspect that the only way we can figure out if anyone can figure out what
we want done from the descriptions we give is to ask them - we don't have
any experience figuring out what the processes of an organization is, we
just have experience with living inside this single instance.
(OK, some of us have experience from other orgs too....)
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf