[rfc-i] insufficient engagement on draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-00

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Oct 21 13:37:36 PDT 2008

On 2008-10-22 06:01, Bob Braden wrote:
>> > A two year contract with straightforward renewal is a painless way
>> > to construct that emergency exit.
> Brian,
> Straightforward, maybe, but not painless for the contractor, and
> therefore, not painless for the
> quality of RFC publication service you can expect.

Well, the alternative is that the contract contains penalties
up to early termination for unsatisfactory performance. I'm not sure
that's any less painful. This is where there's an enormous difference
between major service companies with hundreds of contracts, who can
easily absorb the loss of one contract, and one-of-a-kind contractors.

On 2008-10-22 07:35, Aaron Falk wrote:

> As Bob points out it is a non-trivial effort to propose for a role like this but, more importantly, I think we run the risk of yanking the effort out of a (non-disaster) new provider just as they are getting the hang of the job. 

Yes, that is absolutely true and I agree that it would be
a mistake to re-compete *only* for the sake of getting a few
percent off the costs.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list