Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:46:49PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 8/1/2019 5:13 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:16:07PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> >> Hi Alissa -
> >>
> >> Pruned - other comments in line.
> > Also pruning...
> >
> >> On 7/31/2019 2:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> >>> By contrast, Portia was not an employee of ISOC. She was a contractor to ISOC before the IETF LLC was created, and is now a contractor to the IETF LLC, under your definition of “contractor/consultant.”
> >> Given that Portia is acting or interim (I don't actually remember which
> >> at this point), I don't know that her contractor status matters all that
> >> much or means anything for the future RSE or even for the future IAD.
> >>
> >> What's a lot more interesting is what you (singular and I*) see as the
> >> target relationship for the to-be-hired permanent IAD - contract with
> >> LLC, employee of the LLC, contract with the IAD's employing
> >> organization, something else?
> > As a potentially implicated party, do you see "I*" as just referring to
> > IETF LLC, or to the IESG, IAB, and potentially other bodies whose names
> > start with I?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ben
> 
> Heh.
> 
> I know there was an RFP for the IAD, I don't know if that RFP listed a 
> preferred form of engagement or if that was left blank. If you know what 
> the preferred form as was listed in the RFP is, I'd be happy to accept 
> that as an answer.  If it was left blank, I'm wondering whether the 
> current I* leadership (LLC, IAB, IESG) has an idea of where they want to 
> go with respect to adding overhead positions (e.g. employee or 
> contractor or some other form of engagement) and why that form?  If the 
> best candidates prefer another form of engagement, are we prepared to go 
> in that direction?

Speaking just for myself, I do not have an idea about whether employee or
contractor or other is better.  It's not really clear to me that I should
(with my IESG hat on, as opposed to as a member of the community), either
-- the IESG is generally seen as the technical management group for the
IETF and I don't really have a reason to think that this sort of HR-like
activity falls under that scope.  It seems more like something that the
IETF LLC Board is designed for, and I have plenty on my plate already.
That said, if I become convinced that it is something under the scope of
the IESG, I will of course attempt to inform myself and form an opinion to
the best of my ability, but I don't consider myself very qualified to do so
at the moment.

-Ben

> The change to the LLC may have left a number of assumptions hanging...
> 
> Thanks - Mike
> 
>