Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

--On 12. september 2004 12:19 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> 
wrote:

> To further complicate things, I personally don't think the IETF
> has yet figured out enough about what it really wants from the
> secretariat part of the function and reached enough consensus on
> that to justify any RFP-writing.

I would question that.
It is true that we have not collected enough information in one place to 
get  a proper description, but if you add together:

- the Tao of IETF
- the current public descriptions of IESG and IETF procedures
- the (expired) draft-iesg-procedures document
- the list of things that we expect the secretariat to archive, publish and 
update (WG charters, IPR statements, liaison statements, I-Ds, meeting 
materials)

I actually think we are reasonably close to a description.

I had one series of conversations where I tried to explain what the 
secretariat does, and ended up with a puzzled "but where's the big 
expensive problem?" - our activities may be far less extraordinary than we 
may think.

One reason why we've done less on this activity than on the organizational 
structure is, I believe, because there's no real big gotcha here - we know 
approximately what the secretariat does; on the other hand, we have 
uncovered some real disagreement on how control of the support functions 
SHOULD be organized - and unless we resolve that, talking about the content 
of the secretariat contract is meaningless - we can't make a contract 
without having a basis from which to make it.

And that's what the "scenarios" threads are all about.

                            Harald

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