Carl,
You know that this is going to take more than one employee (or individual contractor) and that the difference is hair-splitting for most reasons. I know that. The document if read carefully is pretty clear about that.
But I keep seeing "one employee only" comments which lead me to believe that some people are still confused.
john
--On Thursday, October 07, 2004 7:20 AM -0700 Carl Malamud <carl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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