> So in light of this, would you still suggest your change of text? yes - I read the text as a specific instruction to the IAOC to implement the begining of the paragraph - i.e. its not enough that the IESG & IAB are OK with the support they are getting they have to consider the support the whole IETF is getting Scott -0--- >From bwijnen@xxxxxxxxxx Thu Dec 2 09:20:04 2004 X-Original-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Delivered-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@xxxxxxxxxx> To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Adminrest: section 3.4 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:19:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Scott writes: > > draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.4 says > > 3.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership > > The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the > performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work > involves treating the IESG and IAB as internal customers. The IAOC > and the IAD should not consider their work successful unless the IESG > and IAB are satisfied with the administrative support that they are > receiving. > > I'd suggest that the last sentence be changed to: > "The IAOC and the IAD should not consider their work successful unless > the IESG and IAB are satisfied with the administrative > support that the IETF is receiving." > Makes sense to me somewhat. However, the first sentence basically speaks to the effect that IETF should be happy. There is lots of extra admin support that IESG and IAB will get from the IASA that is not so visible to the larger IETF. And I think that is what we were trying to capture. So in light of this, would you still suggest your change of text? Bert > Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf