Exactly, I agree with Steve here. > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 18:51 > To: 'Margaret Wasserman'; 'scott bradner'; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...) > > > A brief comment on one specific aspect of meeting planning... > > In broad terms, the planning for a meeting is partionable, rather > cleanly, into two pieces. One is the "envelope" of arranging for the > hotel, an inventory of large and small meeting rooms, the > terminal room, > the external network connectivity, the food and perhaps a few other > things I've left out. This "envelope" is reasonably constant and > reasonably easy to specify. > > The other part of meeting planning is the assignment of WGs, BOFs and > other events to the specific rooms. This requires intimate > knowledge of > the areas and other relationships to avoid scheduling conflicts, work > out priorities and maintain communication with all the > relevant people. > > I believe the former could be farmed out, if desired, > although this gets > a bit complicated because it includes finding sponsors and making > arrangements for appropriate Internet service. The latter is > tied quite > closely, in my opinion, to the year round support of the WGs and IESG. > > I don't have an opinion as to whether the envelope part of the meeting > planning *should* be farmed out to a separate organization. I'm only > commenting here that the tasks divide reasonably cleanly. That is, to > first order, an IETF meeting needs a plenary room, about ten working > group rooms, a terminal room, and a handful of side rooms for > auxiliary > purposes. That's a spec that can be sent out to hotels and meeting > planners around the world. > > Steve > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman > > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:00 PM > > To: scott bradner; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...) > > > > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > At 5:06 PM -0400 9/11/04, scott bradner wrote: > > >imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo > > path) and try > > >to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for > what Carl > > >called the clerk function and maybe some other functions > > (imo it would > > >be better to outsorce the management of the mailing lists > and their > > >archives to a company in that business) > > > > Mailing list management and web hosting (not content) are > two obvious > > candidates for separate contracts if we choose to go with a > > multi-part RFP process. These items are quite independent and > > non-IETF specific. > > > > Meeting planning is another chunk that could be considered > > separately, but the way we do it today has a lot of tie-ins to IETF > > activities -- rules/notices about WG vs. BOF scheduling, > proceedings, > > network, terminal rooms, multicast, sponsorship, etc. So, if we > > outsource the meeting planning separately from the "clerk" > function, > > we would have to carefully define the line between the two, > and that > > line may not be quite where it lies inside Foretec today. > > > > Also, even if we somehow outsource a few of the more > > separable/generic tasks independently, there is still a > large amount > > of IETF-specific work that needs to be done by someone -- I-D > > handling, supporting the IESG review/approval process, handling IPR > > notices, keeping track of WG charters, maintaining our web content, > > etc. It would not be easy to outsource these functions to multiple > > groups. It would require extensive effort to define the interfaces > > between the different functions, and a lot of duplicate > work to train > > multiple groups in the details of the IETF processes and culture. > > > > I have some concerns that if we try to break off a few of > the simpler > > chunks, the effort of coordinating between those chunks may > be larger > > than the benefits that would accrue from allowing > competition in the > > mailing list management, web hosting and meeting planning > areas. So, > > this is something we should think about carefully. A > multi-part RFP > > process that allows organizations to submit multi-part bids > (i.e. if > > we run the clerk's office, we will also do meeting > planning for $XXX > > ) might give us some insight into whether ecomomies of > scale make it > > cheaper to go with a single provider for all services, or if it > > actually works out that it is cheaper/better for some > functions to be > > provided by people who specialize in them. > > > > Margaret > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf