John-
Thanks for your note. A good reset of the discussion, IMO. Some
chiming in and a question below...
On Sep 14, 2004, at 2:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
We have
exactly two problems:
(1) For a number of policy and budgetary reasons, having two
revenue sources that have to be kept isolated from each
other lies on a scale between "suboptimal" and "nuts".
(2) The IESG perceives that they are not getting adequate
support for their work, and the standards process more
generally, from the Secretariat and that, despite
considerable effort, there has been little progress on
solving that problem.
Yes, my understanding as well.
And the guarantee of responsiveness, in _any_ organizational
structure in which administrative/financial management are
separated from standards management, lies in mutual trust and
mutual understanding of goals and objectives, not in
discussions of, e.g., who can blow whose bolts.
strongly agree.
The question, then, is whether we can devise a scenario that
addresses the critical path questions without inventing any
more administrative structure than needed, without depending on
unreasonable expectations of the skills of the IETF _technical_
leadership, and without compromising the apparent and actual
independence and ability of the IETF to develop good technical
standards without undue influence from funding sources.
Agreed.
To reprise, the criteria for that alternative administrative
organizational structure should include:
(i) The IETF volunteer (standards process) leadership and,
for that matter, anyone with responsibility for steering
the standards process, is at arms-length from financial
dealings with particular donors who might be assumed to be
influencing the IETF's standards process.
(ii) Nomcom appointments to IETF volunteer technical/
standards process leadership positions are not expected to
require that candidates have significant administrative
or financial skills, nor are candidates expected to acquire
those skills on appointment.
(iii) We put as much IETF energy into organization-creation
as is actually needed to solve identifiable and real
problems, and no more. In particular, we don't try to
create elaborate structures to handle hypothesized problems
that have not occurred and probably will never occur, nor
do we try to use IETF Administration as a way to develop
and carry out unnecessary social experiments.
john
So, from this I guess you don't like scenarios C & D? :) Does this
mean you do like scenarios A & B? Or are you suggesting that some
other as-yet-unspecified solution will meet criteria (i) - (iii) above
and solve problems (1) & (2)?
--aaron
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf