RE: The "Clerk" function and Standards throughput and quality

["Tony Hain" <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin wrote:
> Carl,
> 
> You know that this is going to take more than one employee (or
> individual contractor) and that the difference is hair-splitting
> for most reasons.   I know that.  The document if read carefully
> is pretty clear about that.
> 
> But I keep seeing "one employee only" comments which lead me to
> believe that some people are still confused.

Well I didn't think I was confused, but maybe. As far as I can tell the
Clerk function could be one of the contracted out services. To a large
degree the task list for the Clerk will determine just how efficient / cost
effective it would be to do that. If the Clerk's primary tasks are handling
the paperwork for the IAD, then it probably doesn't make sense to outsource
that. If as others have suggested the Clerk functions include processing
I-Ds and other tasks closer to the Secretariat service, then it should be
included as part of that service contract. 

To be clear, I am not confused about the ability of a single person handling
all of the tasks that the IESG/IAB might wish for. That just won't happen,
because even if such a person existed we couldn't afford them. That said, it
is not at all clear to me that we need more than a single person managing
well structured contracts with clear deliverables. If that person needs
independent administrative support, that could be just another contract. 

In a way we endanger the future viability of the IETF if we allow the IAD
office to grow beyond a single person. Human nature will make everyone
reluctant to cut permanent staff, while cutting back on contracted services
is much easier to swallow. 

Tony 

> 
>     john
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, October 07, 2004 7:20 AM -0700 Carl Malamud
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> This is one of my more general objections to the report -- in
> >> areas like the personnel one and how staffing roles are
> >> presented, it appears (intentionally or not) to be organized
> >> in  such a way as to impede community understanding of what
> >> is being  proposed.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're referring to here, John.  You
> > understood it.  I assume the rest of the community is at least
> > as smart. This is a pretty hard community to impede, so I
> > didn't try.
> >
> > Rather than tell you, or other members of the community, what
> > to think, I tried to give you some additional facts.  You, as
> > well as everybody else, are perfectly able to draw your own
> > conclusions.  (And, should you wish it, I am available to talk
> > to you or any other member of the community to futher elaborate
> > any of these issues ... I'm even able to make concrete
> > recommendations if you'd like to hear them.)
> >
> > As you rightly pointed out, there are more than one staff roles
> > that support the IETF.  You can do that as contractors or as
> > employees.  It just doesn't matter in the long run, in theory.
> > In practice, it depends on who you are able to attract who
> > might want to work for you.  And, as you've stressed a few
> > times, the first step is to get the administrative director
> > ("IAD") hired.
> >
> > If you have specific suggestions for that job description, that
> > would be quite useful.  You've mentioned several times you
> > didn't like the one in the report, so this would be a good
> > time to fix that flaw.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Carl
> > ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf