Re: Weekly curated news stories about IETF-related topics

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

John,

On 16-Oct-20 22:49, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Friday, October 16, 2020 21:48 +1300 Jay Daley
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi John
>>
>> Yes we are paying for this.  No there was no RFP as David is
>> pretty much unique in this area. The cost is extremely small
>> even with our time factored in and is independent of the
>> number of subscribers so extending its availability to the
>> entire community is the same cost as if we had kept it just
>> for use by the comms team.  The cost is so small that we are
>> well into micromanagement if the community needs to be
>> consulted about a cost of this magnitude.   
> 
> Jay,
> 
> It isn't the cost (although I think I was legitimately curious
> about that), it is the principle (actually several of them),
> including:
> 
> (1) This appears to me to be an expansion of the role and scope
> of the LLC, 

Respectfully disagree. RFC 8711 explicitly mentions "support outreach and communications"
under "Executive Director and Staff Responsibilities". Previously I would have expected something like this to be done by ISOC, but itsm that we intentionally changed that.

Regards
   Brian

> carried out without community consultation, much
> less initiated from the community determining that it is needed.
> Noting that one can get an unevaluated summary of news items
> mentioning the IETf for free from multiple sources, the concern
> about expansion of roles of the LLC and the comms team, would be
> legitimate even if the comms team decided it needed a curated
> news summary for its own internal purposes, but that would at
> least not raise the issues under (3) below.
> 
> (2) If there are costs involved and/or the work is being done
> under a contract with the LLC, I believe that the principle is
> that the LLC issues public RFPs and competes the activity.  I
> haven't noticed an LLC policy that says that principle does not
> apply if contracting or hiring is involved when the amount is
> small or what that amount threshold is.  In particular, if a
> hypothetical RPP were exposed to the community, I believe (based
> on recent comments from others if nothing else) there would be
> very strong input that accountability for accuracy and means of
> giving feedback per perceived errors or omissions be spelled
> out.  And that brings us to...
> 
> (3) If this is going to be made publicly available, using an
> IETF web site and IETF resources, the issues several others have
> raised about accuracy and agreement about what things mean
> apply.  Even if disclaimers are present, our publishing one
> point of view rather than opening things up to at least, e.g.,
> letters to the editor/curator, implies a kind of endorsement.
> 
> (4) We could debate whether David is the best person on earth to
> do this (perhaps I would agree with you and the LLC that he is)
> but he is by no means unique (if you believe he is, I suggest
> that is a lack of due diligence).  There are competitors to his
> other work (whether the LLC thinks they are better or worse) and
> other people working in the general area, some of whom are quite
> good.  Whether any of them would be willing is a question whose
> answer cannot be determined without asking, and you and Greg,
> speaking for and committing the LLC as you have pointed out in
> other notes, have apparently chosen to not ask.
> 
> (5) I may regret mentioning this, but there is also a potential
> overlap here with publications that lie within the scope of the
> RFC Series Independent Submissions Editor.   Noting that
> summaries of IETF and standardization activities have been
> published in the RFC Series in the past, if someone came to the
> ISE and suggested periodic publication of a news summary (as an
> opinion piece by the person making the suggestion and subject to
> editorial review), while I'd predict the ISE would decline the
> opportunity for a number of pragmatic reasons, it would not
> obviously be out of scope, nor would it be out of scope for the
> ISE to recommend to the LLC that it provide a stipend to the
> person doing the work (again, without judging what decision
> would be made).  To the extent to which we see the independent
> submission process as supporting the IETF's standardization
> efforts (even or especially when documents are published the
> criticize the IETF's work and conclusions), the LLC is pushing
> the boundaries of that principle as well.
> 
> As I have said to you in another context, the question is not
> whether or not the LLC can do things like this, ignoring or
> rejecting some or all of the principles above because we agree
> that it can.  Whether it is wise, appropriate, or the best way
> to serve the IETF and its objectives is another matter.
> 
> YMMD and probably will.
>     john
> 
> 
> 
>