[Chapter-delegates] make simple things complex again!

[Christian de Larrinaga]

inline below

Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> writes:

> 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,

ISOC NL formally approached ISOC back in 2018 (from memory)

> 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.
>

invention? But there are a lot of options already out there which with a relatively
small amount of ISOC financial support could if necessary be branched by those
who do have those skills. 

>>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. 

which sort of confirms the point.

> And the Internet Society staff have to provide support to all of those
> groups.

Support yes. But determine / impose a solution ? is that what you mean
by support?


> This naturally means that everyone will not be satisfied by
> any choice. Best regards,
>

So we agree! :-) 

best C
-- 
Christian de Larrinaga