--On Tuesday, 05 October, 2004 13:59 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > > I would like to question some of your assumptions below. > > --On 3. oktober 2004 14:46 -0400 John C Klensin > <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Since the discussion about scenarios for structuring the >> administrative arrangements seem to be settling down, it is >> probably time to try raising some questions that might really >> impact the problems that get solved. >> >> The issues raised below interact directly with the problems of >> getting better-quality standards produced more quickly. >> Unlike some recent discussions, they address those problems >> directly, rather than hoping that sufficient administrative >> reorganization will help by raising the tide. > > I think that we cannot address the questions you raise below > without the administrative reorganization - simply because > under the current regime, we have running code that this does > not get any better. Sorry. You misunderstood me. I believe that the administration reorg is a _necessary_ condition to being able to seriously consider some of these other things. It is not a sufficient condition. Also, whether the current admin reorg plan is the minimum one needed to do the job is a separate question, but may not be relevant at this point. I believe that most of the rest of our apparent disagreement stems from this misunderstanding. >>... >> It is a tradeoff, and it involves decisions that the current >> IESG should not be expected to make, if only because most of >> them have figured out how to work in the current environment >> and presumably like it (at least to the extent needed to >> continue). > > We have considered such a model; in fact the General Area > Review Team (gen-ART) has proved to me that it is possible to > get a great deal done on a volunteer basis - and even more if > you get someone to act as "secretary" for it, such as Avri > Doria is now doing (Thank you, team!) > (see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/review-guidelines.html > for details) We could quibble about this, and, in particular, about whether it is/would be adequate for _standards_ processing as distinct from the things that fall within the General Area. If it were both adequate and helpful (at least without fine tuning), the fact that it is being done in this way only in the General Area would suggest that the other ADs like the workload, are incompetent, etc. I don't believe that, so I have to believe that the model you suggest won't generalize without tuning, and that brings me back to me assertion above. > Such a model would obviously be more stable if we could have > parts of it moved into a paid-for secretariat. > > But - in the current model, we have been told by the CNRI > President that the IESG is being unreasonable already in the > demands made of the secretariat, that no new functions can be > added without financing for them, and that the only means > available for getting more resources into the current > secretariat are raising the meeting fees, getting direct > sponsors for CNRI's IETF activities, holding exhibitions at > the IETF and US government funding. Allowing the sponsors who > currently sponsor the IETF through ISOC to pay for it was not > an option. Yes. See above. >... > Again, we have to fix the underlying problems before we can > pop back up to this level. But once we get there, I don't > think the current IESG is the biggest obstacle to doing so. > >> However, moving in that direction is incompatible with notions >> of "it is a generic function and we can contract it out to >> anyone who provides generic support functions to standards >> bodies and consortia". It wouldn't have to be done within the >> IETF Administrative operation itself, but it would certainly >> need to be very closely coordinated (much more closely and >> with much more responsiveness than we usually think of with >> "contractor") and it would have to be staffed by people who >> had, at least, a good understanding of the subject matter and >> relationships in IETF's work. > > I do not see that this follows. All of the items described > above - checking that people are doing what they promised, > following up when they do not, checking for adherence to > formal criteria, sending back reasonably cogent notes when the > checks fail, and following up - are fairly standard for any > type of document-producing organization - whether it be a > consortium, a standards organization or even a technical > publishing house. We should have this conversation at another time. But please reread my comment above about the incompetence this implies vis-a-vis you fellow ADs. >> chance that we want any version of this >> "standards secretariat" function, we had best make certain >> that the administrative structure can accommodate it, and >> that it can do so with little disruption to its basic design >> parameters. > > A "contractor" would obviously have to work closely with the > people running the process to get this done "right". But I > don't see a particular reason to believe that an organization > doing this under contract would be less able to make it work > than a set of people hired by an organization more closely > linked to the IETF to do the job. > > But I don't see the models so far proposed blocking either > possibility. I do, partially because... well, when I have more time to write. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf