Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

> On Jul 31, 2019, at 1:44 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 7/31/2019 1:28 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>>> On Jul 29, 2019, at 4:48 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 7/29/2019 4:07 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>> Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>     >> [JL] If this is the case, I wonder if it much matters to the community
>>>>     >> whether the role is an employee (full or part time) or a contractor
>>>>     >> (full or part time)?
>>>>          > For reasons stated earlier on the iasa2 list and as I stated at
>>>>     > the plenary during open mic, I remain opposed to the idea of an
>>>>     > employee-RSE. It does seem to keep being suggested, but that won't
>>>>     > IMO make it a better idea;-)
>>>> 
>>>> Are you opposed to the "clerical" issue of how the person is paid,
>>>> or are you opposed to the person being hired by interview rather than RFP?
>>>> 
>>> Practical:
>>> 
>>> 1) The general LOE for the RSE according to RFC6635 is 20 hours a week.  It's difficult to be just a part-time employee as a salaried worker for various reasons including benefits, and the general assumption that if you're working for company A, you're not working for company B.  Throw in the need to do full time weeks 3-5 times a year for the RSE (IETF and various retreats or other meetings) and that time has to be taken from other employers and you get into some messy situations.
>>> 
>>> 2) The employing organization (e.g. the LLC) doesn't really have the size to be able to handle traditional employees.  Even the ED hire is going to be interesting.  Think about payroll, HR, benefits, etc.  Then think about the need for some manager.
>> The LLC has planned and is preparing for the situation where the executive director and potentially others could be sustained as traditional employees.
> 
> I know this. 

Great! Just wanted to make sure the facts are clear for everyone.

> I also know there will be growing pains, and that the RSE is not a "traditional employee" in any sense of the word. In any event, until you can deal with (1), you don't need to think about (2) or (3) or the other bullets.
> 
>> 
>>> You could make it the LLC under an "employee with a contract model" and assign them to the LLC to manage, but there would still be a lot of things to work out.  Then there's "advancement" or the lack thereof.   For Ray, we punted - he was really a contracted for employee by the IAOC of a larger company (ISOC) as far as I can tell.
>> Ray was an ISOC employee.
> 
> *sigh*  Either I need to take writing lessons or others need to read more closely.  I'm not sure what the correct answer is.
> 
> Yes, Ray was an ISOC employee and as an employee was a contracted for resource of the IETF.  That contract might have been implicit or explicit, in kind or with a dollar value attached, but it was a contract between the IETF and the ISOC for Ray's services.   Maybe "contracted for employee, by the IAOC, of a larger company (ISOC)" would have been clearer?

Since the thread had turned in the direction of discussing the details of specific employment relationships, it seems like the subtleties here matter. Since the IETF was organized as an activity of ISOC while Ray was IAD, there was no written contract to speak of between the IETF or the IAOC and ISOC that I’m aware of (though happy to be corrected if I’m wrong). The understanding of the IAD role was documented in RFC 4071. I wasn’t thinking of RFC 4071 as an “implicit contract” when I read your mail, but perhaps that is one way of thinking about it.

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.”

Best,
Alissa


> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> 
>>> And placing the RSE under the ED is pretty much a recipe for failure for oh so many reasons.
>>> 
>>> 3) Stephen's other note (surprising to me) about life tenure after a period of time in certain companies.  I don't think we want to limit our selection to countries where this isn't the law.
>>> 
>>> Relational:
>>> 
>>> 1) This is a senior person who really should be co-equal with the IAB and IESG.  Contracts at least allow for some specification of relationships between these three entities without screwing up supremacy issues in each of the entities bailiwick.   I would expect the next contract to be rather restrictive on who gets to give direction to the RSE.
>>> 
>>> 2) We haven't any one who could actually be a manager respected (in terms of the ability to actually provide value add in managing someone who knows more about publishing than the putative manager) by a good candidate for the RSE position.
>>> 
>>> Obvious:
>>> 
>>> 1) Publishing is not in any way a core competency of the IETF.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>