--On Thursday, 27 January, 2005 09:07 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > just one comment: > > --On 26. januar 2005 10:55 -0500 John C Klensin > <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> However, if the terms and conditions of the current >> relationship with Foretec were acceptable to us long-term, we >> would not have initiated the Admin Reorganization process, >> which you, as participants in the community, presumably know >> perfectly well > > I believe (and have told Bob Kahn that too) that if the > Foretec stuff had been working perfectly, we would STILL do > the reorganization. > In fact, I believe that if it had been a fully functional > working relationship with nobody seeing an advantage to the > current undefined state of relationships, the reorganization > would have happened long before I took on the job as IETF > chair. > As you known, having been part of the effort to take steps in > the same direction.... Well, not exactly. Yes, I have believed for many years that it would serve the IETF well to have a mutually-acceptable written agreement with CNRI (or Foretec) that clarified a number of issues about secretariat management, finances, the authority locus of a number of decisions, and the questions associated with IPR. If such an agreement had been concluded six or eight years ago, and worked well, I think we would still have eventually evolved toward some sort of administrative reorganization, if only to consolidate the income and expenditure streams so that they could be looked at as a complete picture. But this particular reorg process has been characterized by a crisis mentality and a sense of "got to get it done quickly even if it means pushing our procedural boundaries really hard" urgency. That would probably not have been necessary in the presence of a smoothly-functioning secretariat working under a clear and mutually acceptable agreement about responsibilities and authority. That sense of urgency and the associated short deadlines have consumed a good deal of community energy that, IMO, would have been better spent on production of high-quality standards. In general, neither crisis mentalities nor procedural shortcuts lead to carefully thought out and well-reasoned results (I think this process has done amazingly well despite that impediment). Conversely, I wish we were able to focus the same level of attention and expedited handling on WG-based standards and other documents. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf