Re: Supervision under previous admin relationships (was Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work)

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 8/1/2019 5:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm now an ISOC employee and not speaking for it.  I was not an ISOC
> employee at the time of the stuff I will mention below, which is
> relevant to this discussion.
>
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 01:20:35PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> when i was on the iaoc, it did performance review and salary recco for
>> iad.
> When I was on the IAOC, in different roles, we were supposed to do
> that but found we couldn't.  This is because in fact the IETF and by
> extension the IAOC had no formal place in the ISOC corporate structure
> and therefore could not even plausibly be included in the management
> chain of ISOC.  So, bizarrely, we were in a situation where we were
> supposed to evaluate someone's performance without reference to the
> performance goals or evaluation as previously agreed, because those
> were employment documents and therefore protected under applicable
> law.
>
> Indeed, this wart in the IAOC-supervises-IAD arrangement was prominent
> (at least for me) in the list of things to address during the IASA 2
> discussions (so it's not the first time I've mentioned it).  In my
> opinion, they were so addressed during the creation of the LLC.
>
> I am aware that earlier periods of the IAOC relationship was less
> structured and perhaps less rigid about the handling of documents like
> this.  One of the things about organizations that get older, more
> mature, and that have more money in the bank is that they start to
> evaluate risk differently, and that may be part of what happened in
> this case (I don't know, since I wasn't responsible for the handling
> of these documents). But I found I definitely had a problem in
> undertaking my duty.

So you're basically saying that what was in 4071 didn't reflect the 
actual legal landscape.  E.g. the authorities granted to the IAOC to 
manage/control/evaluate the IAD didn't really exist and there wasn't 
actually a formal agreement with ISOC to allow for the setting of 
performance goals or even hiring and firing?

And I seem to remember in one of the message chains a comment that the 
6635 language that said "evaluate the RSE" got short shrift from ISOC as 
well?  So, from the ISOC's point of view, as the contract owner, at 
least part of 6635 did not reflect the actual legal landscape - correct?

Now you have me curious - what were the dates that the RSE and IAD 
contract(s) were assigned from the ISOC to the LLC and accepted by the 
individual contractors?


Later, Mike