Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

Like others, I don't see why we should be encoding this detail of the employment relationship in an RFC.  I recognize Joel's point about that making certain actions, like replacement, more challenging.  However, I don't see that as a concrete problem - my understanding is that the rules around termination of contract and termination of employment are equally fraught.  This does appear in many ways to be an employment relationship as it is (but that is based on no real expertise, just a reading of Publication 15-A, Section 2, so give that zero real weight).

I did a scan of the document and found a few places that mention contracts.  The mentions of contracting are either OK with respect to Sean's request in that the term "contract" is sufficiently abstract as to allow for an employment contract, or the text refers to the RPC/Publisher contracts.  Figure 2 and Section 4.4 are the only tricky parts because they seem to apply to both RSE and RPC/Publisher.

That raises a question: why only consider the RSE as employee?

The RPC (and RFC Publisher, though I see little evidence of this being a separate entity in practice) is very clearly defined as a contractor (see Section 2.1).  But the work done there could be similarly employment-like.  Would the LLC not also want the option to employ staff for an RFC Production Center and Publisher?

That is a bigger change, because the document treats the RPC as a separate entity and requires things like RFPs for the function.  But it seems to me like this is an important thing to consider here.

--Martin

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019, at 04:14, Sean Turner wrote:
> Hi!  While I am not sending this message on behalf of the IETF 
> Administration LLC, I have to admit that I am reading the IASA2.0 I-Ds 
> with more interest as an LLC officer because I am somewhere nearer the 
> front of the go-to-jail line if something goes terribly wrong ;)
> 
> With this in mind, after reading many of the the IASA2.0-related I-Ds 
> the simple IAOC to LLC terminology swap totally makes sense.  For 
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis, I am wondering whether more should be 
> done.  Specifically, I am wondering whether the language about how the 
> RSE services are delivered should be loosened or at least made 
> internally consistent.  As I read it, draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis does 
> include a reference to an “employment agreement or contracting plans, 
> as appropriate” as it pertains to the RSOC working with the LLC 
> concerning RSE services.  But, the rest of the draft, at least to me, 
> reads as if the LLC will contract these services out with no wiggle 
> room for an employee to do them.
> 
> The slant towards contracting made sense prior to forming the LLC, but 
> now that the LLC has been formed these functions could be performed by 
> an employee.  For any given role, the LLC might find it preferable to 
> have the role filled by an employee versus a contractor for the 
> purposes of being able to offer better benefits, to more easily comply 
> with employment/tax law, or for other reasons. The original IASA model 
> didn’t offer as much flexibility since hiring decisions were ultimately 
> ISOC’s.  If the language in the draft was tweaked to accommodate both 
> contractors and employees then this document would not, in mind at 
> least, unnecessarily restrict the LLC.
> 
> Before I submit a list of potential edits to this list for 
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis, I just wanted to see whether these type of 
> changes would even be palatable?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> spt
> 
> PS - I am sending this message right before some family-related 
> activities so I might be slow to respond.
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>