Subject: Re: Requirements Development RFP for Extension to the Data Tracker

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:41:04 -0500

Stephen,
	Did you ever receive an answer/response to this mail?
Much thanks,
Lou

On 12/23/2009 6:15 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi Ray,
>
> So this is to pay someone to write some I-Ds. I don't see an
> explanation as to why the usual volunteer approach wouldn't work for
> this. (But I didn't go looking beyond the rfp text, so the answer may
> be well known),
>
> Ta,
> S.
>
> On 23 Dec 2009, at 09:33, Ray Pelletier<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> Requirements Development RFP for Extension to the Data Tracker
>>
>> The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), on behalf of the
>> IETF, announces this Request for Proposal to develop the
>> requirements for data tracker extensions for Working Group Chairs
>> and Internet-Draft Authors.  The successful bidder will enter into a
>> contract with the Internet Society.
>>
>> The current Data Tracker infrastructure provides support for the
>> work of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the IETF
>> Secretariat, and through the ietf.org website provides information
>> to the community at large.  The current tools are written in Perl
>> and Python and interface with a MySQL database.
>>
>> The primary goal of this project is to develop consensus on a set of
>> requirements for extending the Data Tracker to capture and display
>> the progression of Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) from the time they are
>> accepted as candidate WG documents through to the time the WG Chair
>> requests publication from the IESG, or are declared as being
>> “Dead”, and provide authors, working groups, the leadership and
>> the community the information needed to process, monitor and manage
>> I-Ds.  An additional goal is to provide transparency to all communit
>> y participants into the progress of IETF WGs.  One or more of this p
>> roject’s deliverables may be used to issue an RFP for the design and
>>   development of these enhancements to the Data Tracker
>>
>> The RFP can be found at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/rfpsrfis.html
>>
>> Proposals must be received via email at [email-masked] no later
>> than January 18, 2010, 5:00 P.M. EST.  All questions/inquiries must
>> be submitted in writing and must be received no later than midnight,
>> EST, January 7, 2010.  Responses to questions and inquiries shall be
>> posted on the IAOC website, iaoc.ietf.org/rfpsrfis.html by midnight,
>> EST, January 11, 2010.
>>
>> The point of contact regarding this RFP is the IETF Administrative
>> Director, Ray Pelletier.
>>
>> Ray Pelletier
>> IETF Administrative Director
>
>
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:18:28 +0000

I did get some mail that I guess didn't cc the wgchairs
list (I didn't notice at the time). The explanation
offered was that the tracker's important and good (which
I accept) and that paying for requirements capture work
will ensure control over the schedule (which I also
accept).

I didn't follow up over the holidays, but I guess I'm still
a little concerned with the potential precedent here since
there are lots of drafts that are important (to various
folks) and where we'd like quicker progress, but we don't
pay to push those along, so I still don't see why this is
sufficiently different to warrant spending (presumably
scarce) money.

S.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:17:22 -0500

> sufficiently different to warrant spending (presumably

Even if it's not scarce, it could be put to other uses.  Or just not
spent, which is to say not required.

I have to agree that this suggestion sounds like the nose of a very
big camel.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:10:56 -0500

Lou and Stephen:

I do not recall whether I relied or not, but I think I did.

The Data Tracker is the result of a combination for volunteer and paid 
efforts.  I expect it to continue to be a combination, and this is one 
piece that will be paid for in order to have control over the schedule. 
  When a volunteer provides the service, it is always back seat to 
day-job commitments.  In order to accomplish the goal for Data Tracker 
improvements scheduled for this year, it is vital that the ones that are 
early in the year not slip, so the IAOC has authorized an RFP to select 
a paid person to do the work.

Russ

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:34:19 -0500

Russ,
	I had not seen your response before, so I'm happy to see it now.  I was 
unaware of the past paid work on the data tracker.  Although this seems 
a bit out of the norm for the IETF, I understand your point on paying to 
control the schedule.  I guess I just have to adjust to the "new" IETF. 
  Thanks for making the process more transparent.

Lou

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:40:31 -0500

Early paid work for the Data Tracker goes back to 2002.  So, I am 
confused by the "new" IETF comment.  With the number of other things 
that were going on in that time, this may have been below the radar for 
many people.

Russ

On 1/6/2010 4:34 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> unaware of the past paid work on the data tracker. Although this seems a
> bit out of the norm for the IETF, I understand your point on paying to

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:41:08 -0500

> Thanks for making the process more transparent.

It's not new that various aspects of the tools and infrastructure used to 
support the IETF's activities have been developed and maintained by people 
being paid to do the work.  What is relatively new is that this is visible 
to the community and that the IETF, through the IAOC, has control over 
these efforts.

Work on improvements to the data tracker is a software development project, 
which is necessary for the IETF to do its work but not part of its core 
mission.  While we have benefitted from the efforts of a number of IETF 
community members who have volunteered their time to work on such tools, it 
would IMHO be inappropriate to ask "the community" to spend its time on 
tools development instead of standards development.  I think it is 
appropriate, therefore, to pay contractors to work on software development, 
including all phases of that work.

It should be noted, I think, that the RFP is not for work to write an 
Internet-draft.  It is for work to gather requirements, which is an 
essential stage of any software development project.  It happens to be that 
some or all of the output will be expressed in the form of an I-D, but I 
don't think there's any danger of a slippery slope that leads to the IASA 
hiring contractors to work on standards development because some part of 
the IETF believes that the particular work in question is "important".

What the IAOC has done by issuing an RFP only for the 
requirements-gathering work is to give itself the flexibility to define the 
scope of later parts of the project based on what the requirements turn out 
to be, and on factors such as available budget, the desired mix of 
paid/volunteer development work, and what work the volunteers are 
available/willing to do.

-- Jeff

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:16:10 -0500

Russ,
	Yes it was below my radar, and perhaps I'm dating myself by calling 
this type of think "new"...

Much thanks,
Lou

---

From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:45:45 +0200

Hi,

My understanding of this effort is the same as Jeff's. This is a software
project, where the requirements for the project are quite essential.

It just happens that IETF treats every document as an I-D. For that reason
the requirements will also be posted as an I-D - this way we can also all
comment on how well did the requirements get written down.

Russ, please, comment if I'm wrong with my assumptions.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:39:37 -0500

Completely correct.  Also, we can publish the requirements as an 
Informational RFC if an archive of them is appropriate.

Russ

On 1/7/2010 7:45 AM, Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> On 1/7/10 12:41 AM, "ext Jeffrey Hutzelman"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>