Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:44 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 01-May-19 08:51, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > It seems like you're trying to use a process point to shut down
> discussion here, Brian,
>
> Yes. This is the club of those interested in admin reform for the IETF.
>

It's not a club, it's a public mailing list, just like any other one we do
business on around here.


I do object strongly to it being used for another purpose.
>

Well, it sounds like you have an issue to take to the IAB, then, since
they're the ones who asked to have the conversation here.

In the meantime, those of us who are not challenging the IAB's guidance
here should presumably feel free to carry on the discussion.

--Richard



>
>    Brian
>
> > and one that's incorrect at that.  As Alissa has already said and Ted
> confirmed, "the plan for this doc and the other IAB stream bis documents
> was to discuss them here prior to the IAB running its usual call for
> community comment".
> >
> > Nobody thinks this working group is taking any action here.  This whole
> discussion is feedback to the IAB, and the IAB has asked for it in advance
> of their usual comment period.
> >
> > --Richard
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:38 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     I agree with Joel, but once again I am strongly against a draft from
> >     this WG making any of these changes, which are clearly outside the
> WG's
> >     charter.  When we pass the draft on to the IAB, it would be perfectly
> >     appropriate to raise these points during the IAB's period of public
> >     comment, which of course concerns the entire community interested in
> >     RFCs, not just the IETF.
> >
> >     Regards
> >        Brian
> >
> >     On 01-May-19 06:17, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >     > On the SOW phrasing, I can live with removing it, although I do
> not see
> >     > the value.
> >     >
> >     > On the complex reporting, that was the deliberate community
> compromise.
> >     > The goals was to avoid having the RSE be the line manager.  People
> >     > management is a VEyr different skill set that what we were (and I
> >     > believe still are) looking for in an RSE.  If you suspect there is
> a
> >     > problem with the structure, one could ask the RSE and / or the RPC
> if
> >     > they have a problem with it.
> >     >
> >     > On making the LLC more able to make the RPC employees, that is a
> major
> >     > shift in structure.  I would want to see an explicit reason for
> enabling
> >     > such a change, not just "to give us more flexibility".
>  Flexibility in
> >     > structuring is good if it solves / avoids a problem.  In this
> case, what
> >     > does that solve / avoid?  If we develop a problem, that would seem
> the
> >     > time to ask the community for permission to make such a change.
> >     >
> >     > Yours,
> >     > Joel
> >     >
> >     > On 4/30/19 12:40 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >>> On Apr 29, 2019, at 15:03, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Maybe the correct answer is for us all to stop arguing for any
> position until there is a proposed change that can be discussed?
> >     >>
> >     >> Hi! Again sorry for going into radio silence right after starting
> this thread.
> >     >>
> >     >> Since Joel asked, I have included review comments below. These
> deal directly with the question about more flexibility for the RSE and RPC
> to be either contractors or employees, and the text suggestions assume that
> the desired result is flexibility for the LLC to choose the type of
> employment relationship. I have some other comments/questions based on
> reviewing the doc but I will hold those for now so we can focus on this
> particular issue.
> >     >>
> >     >> I realize people wanted to just s/IAOC/LLC/ here as in the other
> documents (and that the editors dutifully followed this direction), but
> this draft is prescriptive about what the LLC can do in a way that the
> other documents are not. As a result, changing the label seems to have
> other implications that it is worth the community considering. If IAOC ==
> LLC then we would not have gone to the trouble to create the LLC.
> >     >>
> >     >> Also, in case it was not clear, none of this relates to
> performance of current contractors in current roles, but rather
> establishing the LLC's ability to operate successfully in the future.
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> = Section 2 =
> >     >>
> >     >> The use of the term "SOW" could be read to imply contractor
> status. Suggestion:
> >     >>
> >     >> OLD
> >     >>    These responsibilities are defined below, although the
> specific work
> >     >>    items under them are a matter for the actual employment
> contract and
> >     >>    its Statement of Work (SOW).
> >     >>
> >     >> NEW
> >     >>    These responsibilities are defined below.
> >     >>
> >     >> = Section 2.1.1 =
> >     >>
> >     >> "The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production
> Center and Publisher."
> >     >>
> >     >> It is not clear what this is meant to imply from a management
> perspective. Also relevant here is Figure 2 and this text from 2.2: "All
> these activities will be done under the general direction, but not
> day-to-day management, of the RSE." Under RFC 6635, does this mean that if
> the performance of the RPC does not meet the standards in the RPC contract,
> that the RSOC/IAB are to hold the RSE accountable for that? Section 2.1.1
> also says the RSE performs annual reviews for the RPC and the Publisher
> function. But this performance responsibility/accountability relationship
> is not specified in the RPC contract as far as I can tell. That is,
> accountability to the RSE for performance of the contract does not appear.
> Accountability to ISOC (now assigned to the LLC) does appear.
> >     >>
> >     >> If both employees and contractors are allowed for these
> functions, it seems like there are multiple different management structures
> that could all be workable here (e.g., RPC employees reporting to an RSE
> employee who is their manager, or all of them as employees reporting to
> another manager within the LLC, or two contractors whose contracts are both
> managed by the same LLC employee). So if there is flexibility allowed in
> the employment types, it would probably make more sense for this section to
> just specify who is expected to be accountable to whom for their
> performance, and leave out the bits about SOWs and vendor selection. But
> it's hard to suggest a specific edit since the intent of RFC 6635 is not
> clear, or not clearly reflected in the contracts.
> >     >>
> >     >> = Section 2.2 =
> >     >>
> >     >> Same comment as Section 2, regarding "paid contractor.”
> >     >>
> >     >> OLD
> >     >>    The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid
> contractor,
> >     >>    and the contractor's responsibilities include the following:
> >     >>
> >     >> NEW
> >     >>    The RFC Production Center's responsibilities include the
> following:
> >     >>
> >     >> The last sentence of the section would also need to be deleted or
> edited based on edits to 4.1.
> >     >>
> >     >> = Section 2.3 =
> >     >>
> >     >> The last sentence of the section would need to be deleted or
> edited based on edits to 4.1.
> >     >>
> >     >> = Section 4.1 =
> >     >>
> >     >> If employees and contractors are both allowed, it seems like
> mandating the specific process detailed here would not work, since
> depending on the circumstances this might be a vendor selection process or
> an employee hiring process or a mix of both. It seems like specifying who
> must be involved in whatever process is used is important, since that
> allows the community to know that the people who are the appointed experts
> (on RSOC or selected by RSOC) will be involved. But eliding the rest of the
> details and the language about vendors and SOWs and RFPs would be needed to
> provide the flexibility.
> >     >>
> >     >> What to suggest here specifically is dependent on the intent of
> 2.1.1, per my comments above.
> >     >>
> >     >> spt
> >     >> _______________________________________________
> >     >> iasa20 mailing list
> >     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> >     >>
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > iasa20 mailing list
> >     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> >     >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     iasa20 mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> >
>
>