Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
Carl Malamud <carl@media.org> Sun, 12 September 2004 19:06 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 PAA05038; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6Zkj-0006Ke-HH; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:11:09 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6Ze7-0004Oh-Dm; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:04:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6ZZp-0007RU-RI for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:59:53 -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 OAA04603 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:59:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6ZeN-0006Fr-FI for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:04:35 -0400
Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i8CIxF6Y001195; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id i8CIxF3A001194; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carl Malamud <carl@media.org>
Message-Id: <200409121859.i8CIxF3A001194@bulk.resource.org>
In-Reply-To: <00A7150A4512700F34111641@scan.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:59:14 -0700
Organization: Memory Palace Press
X-Winch: Warn 9.5i
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, scott bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi John - > At the risk of being too specific about this, the "meeting > planning" function(s) and the "[standards] secretariat" one(s) > have almost nothing to do with each other --other than, in our > case, some rather important history. Agreed, with the addition of Steve Crocker's point about the meeting agenda being part of what you call the "[standards] secretariat" and what I termed the "Clerk's Office". > > 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 agree with you. My personal view is that a better strategy for that piece is to attempt to negotiate a sole source contract with CNRI. I don't think we understand the process (indeed we probably haven't defined the process enough) to do an RFP. Just my view, and there are reasonable opinions to the contrary. > > Now, if one separates out the tasks and constructs the RFPs and > evaluation process properly, presumably nothing would prevent > one organization from coming in and saying "we actually have all > of these skills, can justify your giving us the whole cluster of > tasks, and can give you a price break if you sign up with us for > more than one of then". That is actually done fairly routinely > in some settings. If there are viable candidates, it would give > you what you seem to be looking for below without imposing a > rather strange constraint on combinations of skills. > That's kind of how I wrote the RFP. Again, just my personal view, it didn't seem prudent or wise to attempt to change all of our horses in mid-stream. Of course, if we'd like to stick with CNRI with some functions, it is important that we begin a dialogue with them. It isn't easy for them since they aren't sure what the IETF would like to do. I've seen several comments that the mailing list or web presence functions seem pretty straightforward to issue an RFI (a request for information) to see what our options are. By drawing a broader brush than just mail or web, I think we could get a pretty good idea of what kind of support we might get in the way of good proposals. That's why I recommended a broader "network presence" function be considered. In summary, I outlined three pieces: 1. meeting planning 2. core network 3. clerk's office We could do sole source procurement on 0-3 of those pieces, or an RFP on 0-3 of those pieces, or we could pick a different decomposition. I don't think you can do both a sole source procurement and an RFP on the same piece, though, so that is a decision point. And, there is a bit of urgency to make that decision since it is hard to move forward during a transition period. (I used the word "urgent" instead of, say, "panic" ... we do have some time to get this right, but it would be nice to move along with all due deliberate speed.) Regards, Carl _______________________________________________ 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