Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:40 AM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 29, 2019, at 15:03, Joel M. Halpern <[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.
>

This seems like a larger change than necessary. Why not just strike "and
its Statement of Work (SOW)"



> = 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.
>

This does seem like a problem, which I hope the IAB will do something to
fix. Ultimately, the RSE can't be responsible for the performance of the
RPC unless it has actual authority (hiring/firing, etc.). Is that what
people's expectation was? As you note, that's not part of the current
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.
>

LGTM.



> = 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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>