Re: What to incorporate (Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring)

[Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>]

Let me underscore this.  We've spent months being explicit that we
were focusing on the administrative aspect of our activities, and
*not* the whole IETF (in any of its many possible values).

We *can* (and will!) expand the scope if needed, but for practical
purposes, that can't be undertaken lightly, and I'm going to say it'll
require an explicit decision to do so.

Leslie.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> an unincorporated organization). But that's distinct from the idea of
>>> incorporating the support function, and is NOT described in the current
>>> document.
> 
> 
> Correct, and I wrote carelessly.
> 
>>>
>>> If people want that possibility described, please speak up - Carl has 
>>> the
>>> pen ready....
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes that would be helpful.
> 
> 
> Well, I don't agree. I think it would defocus the discussion (which
> is about putting the IETF's administration onto a business-like
> basis). IMHO the only case in which we should discuss the wider
> option is if the newtrk WG proposes changes in the standards process
> that would make such a thing necessary.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------


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