--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:50 -0700 Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > > The RFP is not a solicitation to vendors of remote > participation services. It is to hire someone to write a > requirements document for remote participation services. It > is not to develop any code nor are the items listed in the RFP > the only things that should be included. Bob, I was somewhat confused by differences between the description of the RFP in the announcement that was sent out and the RFP itself (aggravated very slightly by the link in the announcement not being correct). I apologize for that confusion at the same time I suggest that propriety suggests that they should be consistent. That said, I understood that this was to hire someone to write a requirements document. I suggest that, if you want a fair and open process, it would be good to follow the rules closely enough to make it possible for non-insiders to bid (or to make it explicit that only insiders and regular attendees are eligible). As I mentioned in my response to Henk, what you ask for in an RFP not only affects what you get (even if all you are looking for is a requirements spec) and who is likely to consider it plausible to bid. More important, I see nothing in BCP 101 that says that the IAOC does not need to expose draft RFPs to community review just because they do not, e.g., require code to be written. If the IAOC believes that such an exception is needed because things don't work without it, then BCP 101 very explicitly requires that the IAOC submit a change proposal to the community. That hasn't been done, so there is no exception. > Note that it > explicitly calls for having community input into the > requirements. The RFP includes: > > "After gathering all of this input, the contractor will > prepare an initial specification for review by the IETF > Tools Team and the vmeet mail list participants." > > and > > "Specifications will be circulated as IETF Internet-Drafts > (I-D)" Right. But those are provisions for community review of a requirements spec, expressed as an I-D. We know how to handle those, especially if you already have General AD and IESG agreement for a Last Call. What I'm concerned about is community review of the RFP to be sure that any proposals address the right set of issues and use adequate mechanisms to be sure a good spec is developed (see my note to Henk). > The intent of this work is to develop a set of requirements > for community review. I don't see any significant value in > asking the community for input on an RFP that is for hiring > someone to write a specification to generate community input. Again, I don't believe that BCP 101 or the associated discussions and precedents give you (or the IAOC) the authority to eliminate community review on the grounds that you don't see it as having significant value. Consider what would happen if the IESG decided to waive IETF Last Call on a Standards-Track document on the grounds that they understood the community well enough to know that such a Last Call would be unlikely to yield any significant comments. I have no doubt that they could make those judgments and make them accurately, but that is not the point. Nor is the IAOC authorized to translate its obligations about transparency and openness to community comment so that it applies only in cases where you believe there is significant value in asking. >... > Regarding the IAOC minutes, the IAOC is aware that there is a > problem. I am sorry to report that the current volunteer > approach to taking and producing IAOC minutes is not working. > I had hoped we could make the volunteer approach work. The > IAOC concluded on today's IAOC call that we should approach > ISOC to get additional administrative support to improve this > function. I will report on the outcome of that in Taipei. I look forward to your report, but have a sense of deja vu about prior discussions of this problem and similar commitments. Perhaps I was just dreaming on the prior occasions. best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf