--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.
I would question that.
It is true that we have not collected enough information in one place to
get a proper description, but if you add together:
- the Tao of IETF
- the current public descriptions of IESG and IETF procedures
- the (expired) draft-iesg-procedures document
- the list of things that we expect the secretariat to archive, publish and
update (WG charters, IPR statements, liaison statements, I-Ds, meeting
materials)
I actually think we are reasonably close to a description.
I had one series of conversations where I tried to explain what the
secretariat does, and ended up with a puzzled "but where's the big
expensive problem?" - our activities may be far less extraordinary than we
may think.
One reason why we've done less on this activity than on the organizational
structure is, I believe, because there's no real big gotcha here - we know
approximately what the secretariat does; on the other hand, we have
uncovered some real disagreement on how control of the support functions
SHOULD be organized - and unless we resolve that, talking about the content
of the secretariat contract is meaningless - we can't make a contract
without having a basis from which to make it.
And that's what the "scenarios" threads are all about.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf