--On Thursday, 27 January, 2005 09:07 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
John,
just one comment:
--On 26. januar 2005 10:55 -0500 John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
However, if the terms and conditions of the current
relationship with Foretec were acceptable to us long-term, we
would not have initiated the Admin Reorganization process,
which you, as participants in the community, presumably know
perfectly well
I believe (and have told Bob Kahn that too) that if the
Foretec stuff had been working perfectly, we would STILL do
the reorganization.
In fact, I believe that if it had been a fully functional
working relationship with nobody seeing an advantage to the
current undefined state of relationships, the reorganization
would have happened long before I took on the job as IETF
chair.
As you known, having been part of the effort to take steps in
the same direction....
Well, not exactly. Yes, I have believed for many years that it
would serve the IETF well to have a mutually-acceptable written
agreement with CNRI (or Foretec) that clarified a number of
issues about secretariat management, finances, the authority
locus of a number of decisions, and the questions associated
with IPR. If such an agreement had been concluded six or eight
years ago, and worked well, I think we would still have
eventually evolved toward some sort of administrative
reorganization, if only to consolidate the income and
expenditure streams so that they could be looked at as a
complete picture.
But this particular reorg process has been characterized by a
crisis mentality and a sense of "got to get it done quickly even
if it means pushing our procedural boundaries really hard"
urgency. That would probably not have been necessary in the
presence of a smoothly-functioning secretariat working under a
clear and mutually acceptable agreement about responsibilities
and authority. That sense of urgency and the associated short
deadlines have consumed a good deal of community energy that,
IMO, would have been better spent on production of high-quality
standards. In general, neither crisis mentalities nor
procedural shortcuts lead to carefully thought out and
well-reasoned results (I think this process has done amazingly
well despite that impediment).
Conversely, I wish we were able to focus the same level of
attention and expedited handling on WG-based standards and other
documents.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf