--On Monday, February 21, 2011 11:23 -0800 Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > > Support for the xml2rfc tool was discussed on the IETF mail > list when Marshall Rose indicated he could no longer support > the tool. Several people volunteered to maintain the tool, > and they recommended the it be rewritten. That recommendation > plus the realization that this tool had become critical to > IETF operations resulted in the IAOC deciding to issue a > public RFP for a rewrite. >... Bob, Thanks for the reply. Let me stress again that, even where I might have a different opinion on some matters, I do not question the IAOC's right to consult whomever (or whatever lists) it thinks appropriate in the process of developing draft RFPs or draft SOWs. I have opinions about the process used too, but they aren't very significant. For example, I note, in conjunction with your comment... > There was an active discussion that resulted in many changes > from what was first proposed. While this wasn't the whole > community I think it a good representation of the people who > are interested in the xml2rfc tool. I will send you the list > members off line. Also, we will use a subset of this group to > review the bids. that there are 18 people on that list. Unless I'm miscounted, of the 18, 7 are AMSL or IETF professional staff, two more are ISOC professional staff, and 5 (not counting overlaps) are IAOC and/or IESG members. This isn't quite the composition I would have chosen for a group I expected to be representative of either the broader IETF community or the community of active writers of I-Ds. But, again, that isn't the point, IMO. >... > In the future, we will strive to give more notice to the > community on planned RFPs. Perhaps I'm the only member of the community who cares any more. If I am, maybe you should just ignore this. But I believe that the intent of the community at the time BCP 101 was written was that the IAOC should not just be providing "notice" (although that is desirable), or the opportunity to participate in the specification-development process or watch it unfold (although I think that would be desirable too), but that you post the text of proposed RFPs for community comment. Most of the time, those comments won't yield anything. But, just like Last Call on standards track documents, exposure of a draft that is believed to be finished to the community might turn something up that the development process (no matter how good) didn't catch. That "something" might be substantive; it might even be a detail of specification style that was somehow overlooked. As we all known, this is a rather diverse community with a broad collection of skills and experience that will never be completely reflected in a small draft development or review group, no matter how carefully chosen. When it occurs, that is valuable. Even when it does not occur, it helps us all understand that the IASA is operating as openly and transparently as I think we all desire. best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf