Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Sun, 12 September 2004 16:14 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23527; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6X4c-0003KN-U1; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:19:32 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6Wwa-0001yU-Eu; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:11:12 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6WnB-0000op-IY for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:01:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22890 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.thingmagic.com ([207.31.248.245] helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6Wrb-00039N-GE for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:06:06 -0400
Received: from [24.61.30.237] (account margaret HELO [192.168.2.2]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 155787; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:57:01 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: margaret@mail.thingmagic.com
Message-Id: <p06020401bd6a1b55497f@[192.168.2.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20040911210653.A62C48958A@newdev.harvard.edu>
References: <20040911210653.A62C48958A@newdev.harvard.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:00:05 -0400
To: sob@harvard.edu, ietf@ietf.org
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Hi Scott, At 5:06 PM -0400 9/11/04, scott bradner wrote: >imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo path) >and try to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for >what Carl called the clerk function and maybe some other functions >(imo it would be better to outsorce the management of the mailing >lists and their archives to a company in that business) Mailing list management and web hosting (not content) are two obvious candidates for separate contracts if we choose to go with a multi-part RFP process. These items are quite independent and non-IETF specific. Meeting planning is another chunk that could be considered separately, but the way we do it today has a lot of tie-ins to IETF activities -- rules/notices about WG vs. BOF scheduling, proceedings, network, terminal rooms, multicast, sponsorship, etc. So, if we outsource the meeting planning separately from the "clerk" function, we would have to carefully define the line between the two, and that line may not be quite where it lies inside Foretec today. Also, even if we somehow outsource a few of the more separable/generic tasks independently, there is still a large amount of IETF-specific work that needs to be done by someone -- I-D handling, supporting the IESG review/approval process, handling IPR notices, keeping track of WG charters, maintaining our web content, etc. It would not be easy to outsource these functions to multiple groups. It would require extensive effort to define the interfaces between the different functions, and a lot of duplicate work to train multiple groups in the details of the IETF processes and culture. I have some concerns that if we try to break off a few of the simpler chunks, the effort of coordinating between those chunks may be larger than the benefits that would accrue from allowing competition in the mailing list management, web hosting and meeting planning areas. So, this is something we should think about carefully. A multi-part RFP process that allows organizations to submit multi-part bids (i.e. if we run the clerk's office, we will also do meeting planning for $XXX ) might give us some insight into whether ecomomies of scale make it cheaper to go with a single provider for all services, or if it actually works out that it is cheaper/better for some functions to be provided by people who specialize in them. Margaret _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- first steps (was The other parts of the report...) scott bradner
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… scott bradner
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… John C Klensin
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Steve Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Carl Malamud
- What we need done (Re: first steps (was The other… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… John C Klensin
- Re: What we need done (Re: first steps (was The o… avri
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Dave Crocker
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Dave Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… graham.travers
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… graham.travers
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Steve Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Joel Jaeggli
- IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) shogunx
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) william(at)elan.net
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Hadmut Danisch
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Dick St.Peters
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 Sam Hartman
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 John C Klensin
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Mark Allman
- RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62) Robin Uyeshiro
- Re: IETF 62 Scott Michel
- Re: IETF 62 Michael D Frisch
- Re: IETF 62 Ted Faber