--On 12. september 2004 12:19 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf