[Chapter-delegates] make simple things complex again!

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:19:06PM +0000, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>
>For instance the procurement you describe is "singular" perhaps "top
>down" where requirements are taken as a snapshot of features that are
>"complex" from a centralised perspective to a "set of requirements"
>rather than universal, inclusive and iterative over time. The first
>model is fair enough for a contiguous organisation.

It is also the only one we can use in order to write a contract with another party for a service that we can use.  That is true irrespective of the software licenses involved.  Ultimately, one has to pick one service in order to have one database.  And one member database, along with some associated services to those members, is ultimately what we have to get from any possible AMS.

>Yet the community that you are trying to assist often sees itself as a
>collection of independent entities globally distributed coalescing
>around a common principle and a set of shared objectives. But having
>to maintain their own ways, communities and legal requirements locally.

And that is true.  Chapters are indeed independent entities that are, essentially, affiliated with the Internet Society according to a fairly small number of governing principles.  Different chapters have different priorities.  Some are made up of technical enthusiasts.  Others are much more focussed on access, or governance issues, or a host of other things related to the Internet.  This is part of why the independence of chapters is important.

>I remember ISOC NL perhaps with NL Net help working on an open source
>chapter / ISOC community project with version control, branching and
>with infrastructure services such as DNS, hosting, application
>deployment and data management for membership services and so on. I got
>the impression ISOC ignored this. Perhaps a "not invented here" issue?

I am not familiar with that work, so I can't comment on it, but the issue is certainly not a "not invented here" issue from the point of view of the Internet Society.  Fonteva, or any other system, wasn't invented here either.  We don't have the technical staff necessary to undertake such an invention, to be frank, much less the time to work on it.

>A singular model is not comfortable for a group who like to "eat our own dogfood"! As crazy as that
>might sound to some.

I think you are eliding a basic issue here, however, which is that we're not talking about one group, but many.  What looks like tasty dogfood to one group of people is an unacceptable burden to others.  And the Internet Society staff have to provide support to all of those groups.  This naturally means that everyone will not be satisfied by any choice. 

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan, President & CEO, Internet Society
e:sullivan at isoc.org m:+1 416 731 1261
Help protect the Internet for everyone:
https://www.internetsociety.org/donate/