Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > John Klensin suggested the following text for the first sentence, and > Scott Bradner supported the idea: > > In principle, IETF administrative functions should be > outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions > "in-house" should be explicitly justified by the IAOC > and restricted to the minimum staff required, with these > decisions and staffing reviewed by the IAOC on a regular > basis and against a "zero base" assumption. > > We have to adjust the second sentence (referring to "such contracts" > would become ambiguous), so the total paragraph becomes: > > In principle, IETF administrative functions should be > outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions > "in-house" should be explicitly justified by the IAOC > and restricted to the minimum staff required, with these > decisions and staffing reviewed by the IAOC on a regular > basis and against a "zero base" assumption. > > The IAD is responsible for negotiating and maintaining outsourcing > contracts, as well as providing any coordination necessary to make > sure the IETF administrative support functions are covered properly. > The IAOC is accountable for the structure of the IASA and thus > decides which functions are to be outsourced. All outsourcing must > be via well-defined contracts or equivalent instruments. Both > outsourced and in-house functions must be clearly specified and > documented with well-defined deliverables, service level agreements, > and transparent accounting for the cost of such functions. > > Is that OK with everyone? Case closed? Sorry to be difficult, but no. I'd like people to explain why they think that the BCP should impose a bias towards outsourcing as opposed towards doing things in the most efficient way possible. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf