Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

This also seems reasonable to me. Generally, I think of this section of the
document as almost like a requirements document for what the LLC ought to
be doing for the IETF, and the employee/contractor distinction doesn't seem
like a relevant requirement, as long as the LLC is properly able to respond
to the IETF's needs as managed by the IAB/RSOC.

-Ekr


On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:22 AM Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Overall, this approach seems sensible to me.  The point of this document
> is to describe the roles involved, and to minimize surprise with regard to
> how the LLC arranges for those roles to be executed.  It should allow the
> LLC flexibility where there's not a compelling need for constraint.  The
> difference between employee and contractor does not seem salient in terms
> of getting this work done.
>
> --Richard
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:14 PM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>