[Top] [All Lists]

RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

2004-09-14 06:40:54
Agreed.  External Internet connectivity, internal Internet access and a
terminal room are all included in the envelope.


-----Original Message-----
From: graham(_dot_)travers(_at_)bt(_dot_)com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:53 AM
To: bwijnen(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com; steve(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com; 
Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

Umm, not so fast....

When we hosted the London meeting, we were told which venue 
was to be used.  It turned out that we had to install extra 
network capacity to the hotel, especially for the meeting, 
because the hotel didn't have what was required. ( So the 
hotel did pretty well out of it. )

There's more to arranging an IETF venue than securing the 
right number of meeting rooms.  We need to get the functional 
requirements for these things specified properly.


      Graham Travers

      International Standards Manager
      BT Group

      e-mail:   graham(_dot_)travers(_at_)bt(_dot_)com
      tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
      mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
      HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

BT Group plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816 This electronic 
message contains information from BT Group plc which may be 
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be 
for the use of the
individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the 
intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of the contents of this information is 
prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in 
error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers 
or address above) immediately. Activity and use of the BT 
Group plc E-mail system is monitored to secure its effective 
operation and for other lawful business purposes. 
Communications using this system will also be monitored and 
may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other 
lawful business purposes. 

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: 12 September 2004 19:41
To: Steve Crocker; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

Exactly, I agree with Steve here.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 18:51
To: 'Margaret Wasserman'; 'scott bradner'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

A brief comment on one specific aspect of meeting planning...

In broad terms, the planning for a meeting is partionable, rather
cleanly, into two pieces.  One is the "envelope" of 
arranging for the 
hotel, an inventory of large and small meeting rooms, the terminal 
room, the external network connectivity, the food and perhaps a few 
other things I've left out.  This "envelope" is reasonably constant 
and reasonably easy to specify.

The other part of meeting planning is the assignment of 
WGs, BOFs and
other events to the specific rooms.  This requires intimate 
of the areas and other relationships to avoid scheduling conflicts, 
work out priorities and maintain communication with all the
relevant people.

I believe the former could be farmed out, if desired, although this 
gets a bit complicated because it includes finding sponsors 
and making
arrangements for appropriate Internet service.  The latter is 
tied quite
closely, in my opinion, to the year round support of the 
WGs and IESG.

I don't have an opinion as to whether the envelope part of 
the meeting

planning *should* be farmed out to a separate organization. 
 I'm only
commenting here that the tasks divide reasonably cleanly.  
That is, to

first order, an IETF meeting needs a plenary room, about ten working
group rooms, a terminal room, and a handful of side rooms for 
auxiliary purposes.  That's a spec that can be sent out to 
hotels and 
meeting planners around the world.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf 
Of Margaret Wasserman
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:00 PM
To: scott bradner; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

Hi Scott,

At 5:06 PM -0400 9/11/04, scott bradner wrote:
imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo
path) and try
to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for
what Carl
called the clerk function and maybe some other functions
(imo it would
be better to outsorce the management of the mailing lists
and their
archives to a company in that business)

Mailing list management and web hosting (not content) are
two obvious
candidates for separate contracts if we choose to go with a 
multi-part RFP process.  These items are quite independent and 
non-IETF specific.

Meeting planning is another chunk that could be considered 
separately, but the way we do it today has a lot of 
tie-ins to IETF 
activities -- rules/notices about WG vs. BOF scheduling,
network, terminal rooms, multicast, sponsorship, etc.  So, if we 
outsource the meeting planning separately from the "clerk"
we would have to carefully define the line between the two,
 and that
line may not be quite where it lies inside Foretec today.

Also, even if we somehow outsource a few of the more 
separable/generic tasks independently, there is still a
large amount
of IETF-specific work that needs to be done by someone -- I-D 
handling, supporting the IESG review/approval process, 
handling IPR 
notices, keeping track of WG charters, maintaining our 
web content, 
etc.  It would not be easy to outsource these functions 
to multiple 
groups.  It would require extensive effort to define the 
between the different functions, and a lot of duplicate
work to train
multiple groups in the details of the IETF processes and culture.

I have some concerns that if we try to break off a few of
the simpler
chunks, the effort of coordinating between those chunks may
be larger
than the benefits that would accrue from allowing
competition in the
mailing list management, web hosting and meeting planning
areas.  So,
this is something we should think about carefully.  A
multi-part RFP
process that allows organizations to submit multi-part bids
(i.e.  if
we run the clerk's office,  we will also do meeting
planning for $XXX
) might give us some insight into whether ecomomies of
scale make it
cheaper to go with a single provider for all services, or if it 
actually works out that it is cheaper/better for some
functions to be
provided by people who specialize in them.


Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>