I think complete nonsense is a little extreme. Typically when you
build something you hire a general contractor who is reponsible for the
project THEY hire the individual contractors to do the tile and roof etc. I
think all that's being put forth is an analogy.
In this case it's either ISOC or an independent corporation who will
represent the client (IETF) and hire the individual contractors to get the
jobs done (RFC-Editior/Foretec functions etc). Really it's just a difference
of opinion in labeling layers of abstraction on the functionality of the
system.
Granted now I think what the consensus people feel is that we need
to appoint a body or hire a person to do the job of defining our needs, and
the IETF obviously needs to approve their decisions before they are
implented. To continue the analogy "I've fount this contractor to install
this tile for this much....do you approve?" Perhaps that is all that is
trying to be said?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Pete Resnick
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:12 PM
To: Dave Crocker
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: isoc's skills
On 10/12/04 at 6:37 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Before we make strategic choices it is our responsibility. And that
means before we even go out for 'bids'.
If we only worry about the details after we have chosen the
contractor,
we will probably choose the wrong contractor and we
certainly will not
have any negotiating leverage.
You keep making a fundamental error in these discussions. If
it's intentional, it's a strawman. If it's unintentional,
it's a basic misunderstanding of the documents that have been put out:
Neither ISOC in scenario O nor the administrative corporation
in scenario C is "the contractor".
Let me repeat: ISOC is not the contractor.
ISOC, in scenario O, will hire the contractors to support the
IETF (according to IETF specifications). The structures we
desire in ISOC to do the hiring and (more importantly)
facilitate communication of those specifications between the
IETF and ISOC are laid out in scenario O.
The admin corporation, in scenario C, will hire the
contractors to support the IETF (according to IETF
specifications). The structures we desire in the admin
corporation to do the hiring and (more
importantly) facilitate communication of those specifications
between the IETF and the admin corporation are laid out in scenario C.
Perhaps you think that we need the specifications about the job *the
contractors* will need to do before we decide *who it is that
is going to hire the contractors*. If that's true, I have
found nothing in your posts justifying that position.
(Perhaps you think that we can't figure out who is qualified
to administer the contracts with such contractors before we
know what kinds of tasks are going to be in the contracts,
but I haven't seen you say that directly, and it's not
directly deducible from what you've said.)
But to continue to refer to ISOC (in the case of scenario O)
as "the contractor" is complete nonsense.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax:
(858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf