Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

No hat.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 03:40:51PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> Specifically, I would regard that as a broken promise: not lightweight, not cheap.
> 

I don't understand this claim.

As near as I can tell, we are talking about a couple different options
for a function that, regardless, needs to be provided.  The cost of
doing this on an employee vs. a contract basis is, I'd say, quite
clearly an empirical matter that changes over time and that is
something best determined by an excecutive director in a position to
make that managerial decision.  So the "cheap" part does not seem to
be something you can assert in this way.

Similarly, we are talking about a couple different options for a
funciton that, regardless, needs to be provided, and provided through
the LLC in some way.  The way that minimizes the overhead of
provision, which is what I think "lightweight" means, seems to me to
be the sort of thing that only the relevant management can evaluate
based on (again) empirical factors before him or her.

So it seems to me that the promise can only be fulfilled by actually
permitting this flexibility.

Our experience with the old IASA design was precisely that too many
things were overspecified in the RFCs, and it seems to me that setting
things up this way so that the IASA2 function can proceed according to
sound and flexible management would be good.

What am I missing that you're seeing?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]