On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am not a fan of making IETF processes dependent on
technologies that don't "belong" to the IETF and I don't
think it's a trivial concern, but if the IETF tools
aren't working for us it makes sense to look outside for
tools that do.
I don't disagree. But I have a slightly different perspective, and I'd value feedback from the community.
It seems to me that it would be inefficient for the IETF to do everything ourselves.
For instance we may choose to use applications that have their own APIs, protocols, etc without requiring the IETF to standardize the whole stack. (To illustrate my point: consider non-IETF standards from IEEE, W3C, etc and/or tools like WebEx, YouTube, etc.) I don't think we should limit ourselves to only using things that "belong" to the IETF if that means limiting our productivity without good reason.
More to the point, it seems reasonable to outsource tools when doing so is the best choice. Just because we /can/ run our own instance of some service doesn't mean that we /should/. I'm especially cognizant of the economics of these choices, given that the IETF budget is limited. There may be cases where we need more control, exposure to the technology, etc, and thus sometimes the "best choice" is not primarily driven by financial considerations. But it's not rational to be steered by a bias for doing things ourselves at the expense of other opportunities, productivity, etc.
My straw-man conclusion, for your consideration and criticism, is that we should routinely consider "cloud based" tools as a first-class option.
For what it's worth, in my role on the IAOC I observe that we do consider all of our options today. But I may also observe a bias in the community that I'd like to understand better.
Thanks,
-Benson