[rfc-i] RSOC name

Jim Schaad ietf at augustcellars.com
Sun Aug 18 21:08:27 PDT 2019

As I said, my memory was that part of the reason provided for the reasoning
behind saying that the RSOC intended to re-bid the contract was a concern
about the number of bidders on the contract.  My assumption is that they did
some consulting of the institutional knowledge about how the two bidding
processes were actually performed to determine if that might have been a/the
major factor in the different number of candidates that were bidding for the
contract.  From the message you sent out it seems that only Joel would have
that knowledge in his head and thus I was just verifying that he has been
asked for that knowledge.  It may be that there was sufficient knowledge
written down some place, but extra efforts that might have happened in both
processes would likely no get written down.

If I am wrong about the reasoning behind the desire to have rebid the
contract then the question is not relevant.  The question just goes to how
the institutional knowledge was being used to answer questions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks at encrypted.net> 
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 8:04 PM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com>
Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RSOC name

	Joel was on the original search team, and the subsequent second
team. Of course he was consulted. Joel was a very active member of the RSOC
:) I feel I am missing something here. I'll ask again - what is the specific
question being asked here? I'm not sure I fully understand, outside of the
extremely broad question last posed below, and that's difficult to respond


> On Aug 18, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com> wrote:
> I am afraid I do not remember who was on the original search committee 
> any more, but if I understand correctly the following statements are true:
> 1.  Joel would be the only person who was on the original search 
> committee and the RSOC at the time of the last bidding process.
> 2.  There are now three people who are on the committee at the time of 
> the last bidding process who are still on RSOC and that does not include
> Given that part of the question that was raised on the list was the 
> issue of how many people were bidding, am I correct in assuming that 
> Joel was consulted to get some answers to that question at some point 
> given that he is the only person to have gone through this process twice?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of 
> Sarah Banks
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 3:31 PM
> To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf at elandsys.com>
> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RSOC name
> Hi,
> 	I believe there was access to institutional memory, in that we had 
> Joel on the RSOC the last time we went through this process. Remember, 
> the last time we went through the process, we already had an 
> incumbent. If you have further questions regarding RSOC membership, I 
> encourage you to explore those with the IAB, who appoints the RSOC.
> Thanks,
> Sarah
>> On Aug 18, 2019, at 12:10 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf at elandsys.com> wrote:
>> Dear Sarah,
>> At 10:30 AM 18-08-2019, Sarah Banks wrote:
>>>       Unfortunately, that's a very broad request. If you can help me
> understand what you're trying to understand and narrow the focus, that 
> would be helpful.
>> I was trying to understand whether the institutional memory was 
>> preserved
> and, if that was the case, to access some of it.  I explained that a 
> few times but my request did not get through probably because of 
> communication difficulties.
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list