-----Original Message-----
From: sob at harvard.edu [mailto:sob at harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 16:31
To: bwijnen at lucent.com; ietf at ietf.org; sob at harvard.edu
Subject: RE: Adminrest: section 3.4
So in light of this, would you still suggest your change of text?
yes - I read the text as a specific instruction to the IAOC to
implement the begining of the paragraph - i.e. its not enough
that the IESG & IAB are OK with the support they are getting they
have to consider the support the whole IETF is getting
Scott
-0---
From bwijnen at lucent.com Thu Dec 2 09:20:04 2004
X-Original-To: sob at newdev.harvard.edu
Delivered-To: sob at newdev.harvard.edu
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen at lucent.com>
To: sob at harvard.edu, ietf at ietf.org
Subject: RE: Adminrest: section 3.4
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:19:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
Scott writes:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.4 says
3.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work
involves treating the IESG and IAB as internal
customers. The IAOC
and the IAD should not consider their work successful
unless the IESG
and IAB are satisfied with the administrative support
that they are
receiving.
I'd suggest that the last sentence be changed to:
"The IAOC and the IAD should not consider their work
successful unless
the IESG and IAB are satisfied with the administrative
support that the IETF is receiving."
Makes sense to me somewhat.
However, the first sentence basically speaks to the effect that IETF
should be happy. There is lots of extra admin support that
IESG and IAB
will get from the IASA that is not so visible to the larger IETF.
And I think that is what we were trying to capture.
So in light of this, would you still suggest your change of text?
Bert
Scott
