Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options
2004-10-04 03:33:55
Dear John,
your last two mails do not point out all the problems (I am quite
interested in Dave's remark on IANA), but they give a good account of a
pure technical (management) problem. Internet is defined as the adherence
of its users to the documents resulting from the Internet standard process.
This process is well defined in theory but faces practical problems we can
name an authoring quality, cost and pertinence loop. Let try to break the loop.
We are in exactly the same situation as every publisher on earth: good
texts cost. However unlike other publishers we do not pay authors and we do
not pay media (for example we are proud RFC documents are free, while ITU
documents are not). What every publisher on earth - and on the net - do
when his revenues do not match the costs of his publication (readers do not
pay, or do not pay enought)?
Three possibilities :
- either he pays (in our case : volontary work and contributions)
- either advertizing pays the media - it means that sponsors think that
pertinence will attract readers who will pay them back
- or author pay the service - it means that the authors think quality is
worth it
Let consider publications like Nature or other professional publishers have
advertzing pages. Then let think about the following ideas :
- signing a draft (what makes publicity to the author and to the author's
organization) should be charged in proportion to the author's organization
possible commercial return. This is actually the case today, but not
transparently and not oargnizaed so it is not efficient and even
detrimental). Large organizations spend money ON the IETF (salaries,
secretariat, translators). This actually slows the process because they do
not suffer from its increased complexity and are not motivated to simplify
it. Let now consider that the same total budget is spent BY the IETF: most
of the problem would be gone because everyone could work in the same
conditions for better deliverables. Let now consider that the money is
provided by every Member (what we actually do since voluntaries pay with
their own time - so they "pay" large organizations for the time their paid
contributors can more easily spend): everyone would want to go faster.
- this could translate easily in a basic (and polite) information provided
when joining a WG - listed in the WG page. Who I am, what is my
organization, what is the amount of time I can spend (salaries), what is
the turn-over of my organization in datacoms. How much my organization can
pay to sponsor this effort. Once this is published it would be very poor
advertizing for an organization not to foot its pledge. But if they don't
they could explain why ... transparently. Many things could be much clearer
and benevolent dedication far more acknowledged and assisted. I suppose
that internationalization could also be helped (non-US firms advertizing
through their active support of the IETF standard process).
- the interest would also be that before publicly showing interest and
committing money (they already do it when they tell an employee to join a
WG) organizations would most probably carry a market study. This would help
WGs a lot.
- obviously a mechanism should be found for "paying" subjects to sponsor
more osbcure or research areas. Why nota "Nature-like" publications
sponsoring IETF meetings. As a result I suppose IETF meetings receiving a
better coverage could get more sponsoring. WGs would also probably get more
"dormant" participants who would probably help at the end of the day in
evangelizing or supporting testing.
Such a system could be easily managed by an indepedent secretariat
organization gathering the "sponsors" (actually authors and authors
organizations). All of them being together would nullify the risks of one
or few taking leadership. All the more if decisions (we are
in administrative area only) are voted on a Member basis and not on a
money contribution basis: contributing one dollar (euro, yen) once for one
draft would give membership (while showing others if I am a serious
contributor or a commercial fake). So it would be a resource management
only organization by authors (large, small, individual and voluntaries)
only. No impact on the essence of the content, but faster, better, more to
the point content because a more efficient (fully respected better
supported) Intenet standard process (cheaper to produce) or more demanded
content by readers (users). Bill Manning testified that users were the
problem: they are the IETF readers ... let us attract their interest, they
will help one way or another - this is what one name commerce.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|