Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > EKR wrote: >> 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. > > I have sympathy with that view, especially since outsourcing can lead > to egregious results if you do it wrong (just think "billable hours"). > But on the other hand, we want to discourage egregious bloat of direct > staff posts (I could give some examples, but then I would probably > get sued). We definitely do want to discourage egregious bloat of direct staff posts, but we also want to discourage egregious bloat at the contractors we outsource to. I'm not sure why people think there is more risk of one than the other. > And if we just say "do things in the most efficient way > possible" we've said very little. Agreed. But saying something correct is complicated. Indeed, there have been entire books written about the topic. So, I'd rather say nothing than something that seems wrong. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf