>
> 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.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, John. You understood
it. I assume the rest of the community is at least as smart.
This is a pretty hard community to impede, so I didn't try.
Rather than tell you, or other members of the community, what
to think, I tried to give you some additional facts. You, as
well as everybody else, are perfectly able to draw your own
conclusions. (And, should you wish it, I am available to talk
to you or any other member of the community to futher elaborate
any of these issues ... I'm even able to make concrete recommendations
if you'd like to hear them.)
As you rightly pointed out, there are more than one staff roles
that support the IETF. You can do that as contractors or as
employees. It just doesn't matter in the long run, in theory.
In practice, it depends on who you are able to attract who might
want to work for you. And, as you've stressed a few times,
the first step is to get the administrative director ("IAD")
hired.
If you have specific suggestions for that job description, that
would be quite useful. You've mentioned several times you didn't
like the one in the report, so this would be a good time to fix
that flaw.
Thanks!
Carl
,
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf