Re: Weekly curated news stories about IETF-related topics

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

Mumble.  Point conceded.  Thanks.
   john


--On Saturday, October 17, 2020 08:44 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>