> 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. > With the outsourcing model, my underastanding is that we want to do it via an RFP process, and so that would help (I hope) reduce bloat. Bert _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf