Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> Thu, 23 September 2004 14:53 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 KAA19790; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:53:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAV5K-0001Bq-Rh; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:00:50 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAUrg-0000ol-Po; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:46:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAUhR-000649-7A for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:35:57 -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 KAA17600 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:35:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.execdsl.net ([208.184.15.238] helo=EXECDSL.COM) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAUo3-0000ZQ-EF for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:42:59 -0400
Received: from [64.254.114.114] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 7624266 for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:35:37 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040923103103.02345cb0@localhost>
X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:35:10 -0400
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
In-Reply-To: <414F3627.6050407@thinkingcat.com>
References: <414EDAA2.9080205@thinkingcat.com> <414EDAA2.9080205@thinkingcat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Subject: Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3

I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to follow.  It appears 
to me to be the lowest risk path consistent with the needs that have been 
identified.


Two minor comments:
1) The references to "the IASF bank account" should probably be relaxed to 
"IASF fund accounts" or "IASF accounts".  As written, it presumes that 
there is exactly one bank account, and that separation of funds is by bank 
control.  While the later is probably a good idea, I don't think this BCP 
is the place to call that out.  And the exact number of bank accounts used 
by IASF (0, 1, 5, or ...) is not a concern for this BCP.

2) The schedule calls for seating the IAOC on January 15, and hiring the 
IAD by the end of January.  Given that the search committee can not be 
appointed until the board is seated, it seems that item is either an 
impossible schedule or assumes facts not in evidence.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf