Hi Joel,
At 10:35 AM -0400 9/23/04, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Two minor comments:
1) The references to "the IASF bank account" should probably be
relaxed to "IASF fund accounts" or "IASF accounts". As written, it
presumes that there is exactly one bank account, and that separation
of funds is by bank control. While the later is probably a good
idea, I don't think this BCP is the place to call that out. And the
exact number of bank accounts used by IASF (0, 1, 5, or ...) is not
a concern for this BCP.
Yes. Someone else also pointed this out. If we go forward with
Scenario O, the BCP should probably just say that the money will be
kept in separate account(s) and let the business management folks
determine the right form and structure for those accounts.
2) The schedule calls for seating the IAOC on January 15, and hiring
the IAD by the end of January. Given that the search committee can
not be appointed until the board is seated, it seems that item is
either an impossible schedule or assumes facts not in evidence.
Actually, the schedule calls for the interim IAOC to be seated on
15-Nov and for that group to begin the recruitment process. The
actual hiring wouldn't occur until after the BCP is approved by the
IESG and ISOC (Jan 17th). So, this is a ~2-month recruitment
process. which is still aggressive but perhaps not impossible.
There are some compromises involved for quick start-up (like having
the nomcom appointed members join later), but we've tried to be
careful to make any major decisions (appointments, hiring, contracts)
follow the appropriate levels of community approval and to have all
of the major decisions made by people who will be responsible for the
long-term consequences (good or bad) of those decisions. I'd be very
interested to know if folks think that we've gotten this wrong --
either the principles/priorities, or the details of schedule we've
put forward...
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf