Re: [Iasa20] Comments on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4844-bis-01

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-02-11 12:36, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Why do we need to change the wording we have?  It has worked 
> sufficiently well for quite some years.  To the degree the legal 
> separation is important, it was just as important then.

Exactly (and Brad's message completely confirms this). We have WG
consensus for the current text, too.

   Brian

> 
> This working group is not chartered to fix all the potential 
> misunderstandings in our process documents.  Those are almost infinite.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 2/10/19 5:18 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 12:06 Michael Richardson <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Eliot Lear <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>          > This is the desired process. I think what Richard is pointing
>>     out is
>>          > that the LLC is under no formal obligation to pay attention
>>     to the
>>          > IAB. And so like all good contractual relationships one has
>>     to ask what
>>          > the recourse is for the LLC not following through. The answer
>>     is quite
>>          > simple: appoint different LLC directors the next time around.
>>
>>     We do this regularly in our day jobs.
>>     As hiring managers ("IAB"), we interview and hire people.
>>     Once we've decided, we sent them to HR ("LLC"), and they negotiate an
>>     agreement.   HR can (and sometimes does) have reasons why they won't
>>     hire the
>>     people we want.  They also let people go for a variety of reasons, many
>>     of which are against the wishes of the hiring manager.
>>
>>     What's unique about this situation is that we ("IAB") have some control
>>     over HR.
>>
>>
>> This is an OK analogy, especially if you extend it to say that HR can 
>> hire whomever they want and fire them at will, but the hiring manager 
>> might not actually put them in the intended role if they don't like them.
>>
>> Eliot exactly captured what I was trying to say, and I think he points 
>> to the right resolution here.  Instead of saying "the hiring/firing of 
>> the RFC Series Editor to stay with the IAB, but the funding to stay with 
>> IASA", we can instead express the expectation of the community:
>>
>> - The IAB will designate a person to be RSE, and may choose to remove or 
>> change that designation at any time.
>> - The IASA is expected to make appropriate hiring/contractual 
>> arrangements to enable the IAB's designated person to perform the RSE role.
>>
>> The key difference here are the IAB does not "hire / fire", they 
>> "designate", since they clearly cannot have the power to force the IASA 
>> to enter into contracts.  Otherwise, I think text to this effect would 
>> encode the desired case that Bob describes.
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
>>     networks [
>>     ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT
>>     architect   [
>>     ] [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     Michael Richardson <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Sandelman Software Works
>>       -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     iasa20 mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>