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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 13 September 2004 04:45 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 AAA07926; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6inP-0006u0-O7; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:50:31 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6ige-0006aB-Ko; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:43:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6iam-0005ol-5o for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:37:28 -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 AAA07342 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from clint.songbird.com ([208.184.79.11] helo=joy.songbird.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6ifO-0006jK-LI for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:42:15 -0400
Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8D4ang29262 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:36:49 -0700
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:36:42 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <484817945.20040912213642@brandenburg.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <00A7150A4512700F34111641@scan.jck.com>
References: <20040911210653.A62C48958A@newdev.harvard.edu> <EFB15D2F62C4D0CBEC54E5A4@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <00A7150A4512700F34111641@scan.jck.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
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: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John,

JCK> To further complicate things, I personally don't think the IETF
JCK> has yet figured out enough about what it really wants from the
JCK> secretariat part of the function and reached enough consensus on
JCK> that to justify any RFP-writing.  In this respect, the material
JCK> in The Report seems to me to be inadequate unless the definition
JCK> of what the IETF wants from the secretariat is "whatever the
JCK> IESG or its leadership decide they want on a given day".

Bingo!

Thank you.

Virtually all of the "reorganization" discussion over the last year --
two, or however long it has been going on -- has been about form, and
almost literally nothing about the actual work (except to complain that
the work has not been getting done "properly". Whenever anyone has been
bold enough to ask what the details of the work actually need to be, the
response is a hand-waving dismissal.

It is time to treat the content of the work at least as seriously as we
have been treating the form of the corporate relationships.

In fact, we should defer all discussions about form until we have
detailed, written agreements about a) the details of the work, b) the
budget for getting the work done, and c) the funding basis that will
cover the budget, with enough credibility to b and c to feel legitimate
for long-term planning.

It really is time to make concrete, detailed, substantial descriptions
of the functions to be performed, to the level of work statements that
would be attached to contracts.


JCK> Now, if one separates out the tasks and constructs the RFPs and
JCK> evaluation process properly, presumably nothing would prevent
JCK> one organization from coming in and saying "we actually have all

Right.  However the upside to doing these component specifications is
that each one can be evaluated carefully and pushed towards
completeness.


and Harald,

HTA> I suspect that the only way we can figure out if anyone can figure out what
HTA> we want done from the descriptions we give is to ask them - we don't have
HTA> any experience figuring out what the processes of an organization is, we
HTA> just have experience with living inside this single instance.

Permit me to respectfully disagree......

What you are describing is quite simply handing over complete
responsibility for the IETF's operation to someone else.  So it would be
whatever they tell us it would be.

Curiously, this is exactly what you and some others have been claiming
is the problem with the current Secretariat relationship.

One does not hire a person or an organization with terms that reduce to:
"here's a bunch of money, now go figure out what you are going to do for
us."


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>


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