Hi Joel,
At 10:35 AM -0400 9/23/04, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Two minor comments:
1) The references to "the IASF bank account" should probably be relaxed to "IASF fund accounts" or "IASF accounts". As written, it presumes that there is exactly one bank account, and that separation of funds is by bank control. While the later is probably a good idea, I don't think this BCP is the place to call that out. And the exact number of bank accounts used by IASF (0, 1, 5, or ...) is not a concern for this BCP.
Yes. Someone else also pointed this out. If we go forward with Scenario O, the BCP should probably just say that the money will be kept in separate account(s) and let the business management folks determine the right form and structure for those accounts.
2) The schedule calls for seating the IAOC on January 15, and hiring the IAD by the end of January. Given that the search committee can not be appointed until the board is seated, it seems that item is either an impossible schedule or assumes facts not in evidence.
Actually, the schedule calls for the interim IAOC to be seated on 15-Nov and for that group to begin the recruitment process. The actual hiring wouldn't occur until after the BCP is approved by the IESG and ISOC (Jan 17th). So, this is a ~2-month recruitment process. which is still aggressive but perhaps not impossible.
There are some compromises involved for quick start-up (like having the nomcom appointed members join later), but we've tried to be careful to make any major decisions (appointments, hiring, contracts) follow the appropriate levels of community approval and to have all of the major decisions made by people who will be responsible for the long-term consequences (good or bad) of those decisions. I'd be very interested to know if folks think that we've gotten this wrong -- either the principles/priorities, or the details of schedule we've put forward...
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf