ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [IAOC] xml2rfc and legal services RFPs

2011-02-21 14:20:28


--On Monday, February 21, 2011 11:23 -0800 Bob Hinden
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

John,

Support for the xml2rfc tool was discussed on the IETF mail
list when Marshall Rose indicated he could no longer support
the tool.  Several people volunteered to maintain the tool,
and they recommended the it be rewritten.  That recommendation
plus the realization that this tool had become critical to
IETF operations resulted in the IAOC deciding to issue a
public RFP for a rewrite.
...

Bob,

Thanks for the reply.  Let me stress again that, even where I
might have a different opinion on some matters, I do not
question the IAOC's right to consult whomever (or whatever
lists) it thinks appropriate in  the process of developing draft
RFPs or draft SOWs.

I have opinions about the process used too, but they aren't very
significant.  For example, I note, in conjunction with your
comment...
 
There was an active discussion that resulted in many changes
from what was first proposed.  While this wasn't the whole
community I think it a good representation of the people who
are interested in the xml2rfc tool.  I will send you the list
members off line.  Also, we will use a subset of this group to
review the bids.

that there are 18 people on that list.  Unless I'm miscounted,
of the 18, 7 are AMSL or IETF professional staff, two more are
ISOC professional staff, and 5 (not counting overlaps) are IAOC
and/or IESG members.  This isn't quite the composition I would
have chosen for a group I expected to be representative of
either the broader IETF community or the community of active
writers of I-Ds.  But, again, that isn't the point, IMO.

...
In the future, we will strive to give more notice to the
community on planned RFPs.

Perhaps I'm the only member of the community who cares any more.
If I am, maybe you should just ignore this.  But I believe that
the intent of the community at the time BCP 101 was written was
that the IAOC should not just be providing "notice" (although
that is desirable), or the opportunity to participate in the
specification-development process or watch it unfold (although I
think that would be desirable too), but that you post the text
of proposed RFPs for community comment.   Most of the time,
those comments won't yield anything.  But, just like Last Call
on standards track documents, exposure of a draft that is
believed to be finished to the community might turn something up
that the development process (no matter how good) didn't catch.
That "something" might be substantive; it might even be a detail
of specification style that was somehow overlooked.  As we all
known, this is a rather diverse community with a broad
collection of skills and experience that will never be
completely reflected in a small draft development or review
group, no matter how carefully chosen.  When it occurs, that is
valuable.  Even when it does not occur, it helps us all
understand that the IASA is operating as openly and
transparently as I think we all desire.

 best,
   john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf