--On Thursday, October 07, 2004 7:53 AM +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--On onsdag, oktober 06, 2004 17:50:04 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:07 PM +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do think our thoughts run very much in parallel - I'll be interested to hear more of why you think the "scenario O" organizational format will make it hard to make those support functions work.
Again a misunderstanding -- I don't see "Scenario O" as being either better or worse in regard to the above than any other scenario. My concern is with the definition of the Clerk function, which is scenario-independent.
Thanks for the clarification!
I thought you might be pointing at the "one staff member - rest of the work is contracts", which is a common feature to scenarios C and O. If "all" that is required is to modify the description of the "clerk" function, that needs to be done before we call for interested parties - it is not on the critical path to adopting one scenario for implementation (although all clarification early is good).
Harald,
I think the "one staff member" story is unrealistic as well. But, as you say, it is shared between C and O. It is, by some creative definition-making, a bit easier for O because of the possibility of borrowing/sharing staff from/with ISOC. But the fact remains that the document calls out several more staff roles than the one employee it asks for. Whether those staff members are "employees" or contractors working on an individual commitment basis (rather than hiring an organization to do the job without picking individual personnel) is, IMO, hair-splitting to make the staff look smaller, not a matter of substance. It would be a matter of substance if it significantly changed either costs of management effort, but whether such people are employees or contractors doesn't help with the management and may actually increase costs.
This is one of my more general objections to the report -- in areas like the personnel one and how staffing roles are presented, it appears (intentionally or not) to be organized in such a way as to impede community understanding of what is being proposed. But, again, this doesn't impact which Scenario is more appropriate, nor does it change the urgency or priorities of getting the relevant issues resolved.
john b
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf