Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:16:19 -0700

Mike,

Thanks for posting this document. As you say, it's probably
best to focus on big picture principles rather than details
With that in mind, there are several pieces of this that
do not sit well with me, as noted below.

RSE ACCOUNTABILITY
As I understand this document, the intent is to largely insulate the
RSE from external forces.

Specifically:

1. The RSEB (which nominally represents the RFC community) does not
seem to have any hiring and firing authority [0]

2. While this is a bit more unclear, the LLC does not seem to be
chartered to replace the RSE based on concerns about their
strategic choices. [1]

3. Section 4.3 says:

   While it is ultimately the LLC's decision, the RSE should be engaged
   via either a personal services contract or an employment contract for
   a given term.  Engagement as an at-will employee would not be
   appropriate for a senior-level resource with these strategic
   responsibilities and would not provide any measure of consistency and
   continuity over the RFC Series.

While I can certainly understand how this arrangement might be
appealing to prospective RSEs, I do not believe it provides an
appropriate level of accountability to the community. Specifically, I
believe it is necessary to have the ultimate authority for stratetic
decisions be vested in the community (in this case this would be the
RSEB, ignoring for the moment its composition), but that does not
appear to be the case here. This issue is exacerbated by the fact
that the RSE is themselves a member of the RSEB.

On the specific topic of the nature of the contract, ignoring the
specific question of at-will, it is quite common for senior level
executives (CEOs, etc.) to be simply replaced by the board, so I
don't think it follows that a senior-level resource with strategic
responsibilities should have high levels of security of employment.

THE IETF'S ROLE
This structure seems to cast the IETF in a fairly small role,
for instance making the ISE chair. I recognize that there are
differences of opinion in how much weight we should give
the non-IETF portions of the RFC series, but given that the
IETF is by far the largest customer of the RFC series, I
believe that any structure should be designed to ensure that
the IETF's needs are met. This structure does not seem to me
to do so.

-Ekr

[0] "Note: As the RSEB has no contractual relationship with the RSE, the
RSEB does not exercise any form of work direction over the RSE nor
does it have any role in evaluating the RSE's performance."

[1] "For avoidance of doubt: The LLC has no oversight or management role
with respect to the strategic development of the RFC Series.  The
funding of the RSE, RPC and other tasks within the RSO does not
expand the LLC's current administrative remit to oversight of the RFC
Series."

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:34 AM Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb/
>
> My intent is to ignore comments for a few days rather than jump in and
> defend each comma and clause.
>
> Basically, this mostly leaves intact the operation of the RFC Series
> Function while splitting the functions previously held by the IAB into
> two specific ones:  Strategic evolution of the series goes to a purpose
> built organization - the RFC Series Editorial Board, while the
> contractual nitty gritty of paying for things gets firmly homed under
> the LLC.
>
> Enjoy - Mike
>
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:22:58 -0400

> do not sit well with me, as noted below.

I figured.

> RSE from external forces.

I can see how you might think that, but I wouldn't put it that way.   
Instead, its to make sure each participant in this process understands 
their authorities and responsibilities and to prevent the levels of 
unaccountability we currently have with respect to the RSOC and to a 
lesser extent the IAB.

> seem to have any hiring and firing authority [0]

Well, contrary to popular belief, neither the IAB nor the RSOC has ever 
had hiring or firing authority.  In the ISOC era, that rested with the 
HR department I believe.  In the LLC era it rests with the LLC .  What 
the IAB and RSOC did have was the ability to recommend or request the 
selection of a particular candidate by the hiring entity.  A good 
portion of the problem we encountered was them not understanding those 
limitations.   The LLC has indicated an intent to defer to the wishes of 
the IAB in this matter, but legally, the role still resides with the LLC.

With respect to hiring, in the "new" model, the RSEB can recommend RSE 
candidates to the LLC, but if the LLC isn't able to come to an agreement 
on terms with that candidate, there's nothing the RSEB can do to change 
that.  That again was no different than before.  The LLC - legally, but 
probably not ever going to happen practically - could actually hire 
whoever they wanted irrespective of any input from the RSEB, IAB, IESG etc.

> chartered to replace the RSE based on concerns about their
The LLC decides how it decides, and this document doesn't try to force 
them into any given model.   Once the contract  between the LLC and the 
RSE is written, it controls a good part of those decisions.  I would 
expect any contract to support termination for malfeasance, or not doing 
the work contracted.   I would expect any contract lawyer to yell at any 
attempt where the LLC attempts to control the "how" of the work being done.

In any event, the LLC handles personnel and contract issues, and the  
RSEB is the one that approves the publication of the RSE's work  and 
never the twain shall meet.  I doubt that the RSEB is going to approve 
said documents so if the strategy espoused by the RSE is at odds with 
what the RSEB members believe is the correct path.  If the RSEB is 
mostly against the RSE time and again, and the members of the RSEB make 
those concerns known to the LLC, its unlikely that the LLC will extend 
the contract.   Legally, this is no different that the current model, 
but with a black box warning being made to the LLC and RSEB on the 
limits of their authorities.

> that the RSE is themselves a member of the RSEB.

1) Strategic decisions ARE vested in the community.  It takes at least  
5 members of the RSEB  (which may or may not include the RSE) to approve 
a new document that describes changes in strategy.  The RSEB represents 
the community.  If it isn't written down, it didn't happen.

2) How is the fact that the RSEB is one member of 8, 6 of which are 
appointed either by the Nomcom, or by the streams exacerbating any issue 
(which AFAICT doesn't actually exist)?

3) The IETF has more of a republic feel to it than a democracy. We 
select various folk and delegate authority to them.  We hope they do 
what we want, but more times than not they do what they need to do.   
The community has never had the ultimate authority for strategic 
decisions related to the RFC series - instead it's delegated to 
(actually wrong word - powers were claimed by) the IAB the right to 
select where standards were published.   When ISI got out of the RSE 
business, we put the "authority" into an appointed RSE (and later a 
hired RSE) who was required by the terms of their contract and the whole 
host of documents describing the relationship between the RSE and the 
community, to actually listen to what the community said, evaluate it 
with respect to what they knew about both the IETF and the needs of 
publication, and to synthesize  a solution that mostly met the needs of 
both. I don't expect that last part to change.

4) Continuity is important in this space - perhaps more so that you're 
willing to admit.  The model of an on-call consultant who sometimes 
comes in and answers questions does not support the idea of a dynamic 
and world-class publication system.  We can coast a while on the work 
that Heather and her predecessors have done, but I don't think we can do 
that for long and maintain the publication standards.

5) The RSE is accountable to their contract.  AFAICT the contracts in 
the past have been written to ensure the RSE pays attention to what the 
community says.   The community can yell at the RSE all it wants and the 
RSE will listen, but in the end, its the LLC that has to determine 
whether or not the RSE is fulfilling their contract.   You may not think 
of that as accountable to the community, but you seem to be implying 
that you want the RSE directly accountable to yourself in a way that's 
not legally possible.

> responsibilities should have high levels of security of employment.

*sigh* No.   Senior level executives may generally be replaced by the 
board, but there's a cost to doing so and that cost is written into the 
contract.  Absent the executive failing to meet goals agreed to in the 
contract, the board either has to honor the contract, pay a kill fee, or 
go to court (or in one case I'm aware of - massively accelerate stock 
vesting).    That said, contracts do support probationary periods and 
terminations for convenience - all depends.

> the IETF's needs are met. This structure does not seem to me

*sheesh*  The RSEB contains 3 stream managers selected by the IAB, IESG 
and IRSG, an ISE selected by the IAB, 2 at large members selected by the 
Nomcom and 1 at large member selected by the ISOC.    Out of 8 members, 
6 of them are selected either directly or indirectly by the IETF 
community.   I fail to see why you think that the IETF is being give 
short-shrift here?

The RSEB is the body that signs off on documents that describe the RFC 
Series, its proceedures, publication process and evolution.   The RSE 
will in general be the author of those documents, but there is NOTHING 
preventing the RSEB from drafting its own documents, or asking for a 
third party to do so.   Those documents basically become the BCPs that 
control the RFC system.

Later, Mike

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:34 AM Michael StJohns 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2020 15:50:13 -0700

[Trying to cut down to the points that I think are at the heart
of the matter, which does not mean that I necessarily agree
with your responses.]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 11:23 AM Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> Well, contrary to popular belief, neither the IAB nor the RSOC has
> ever had hiring or firing authority.  In the ISOC era, that rested
> with the HR department I believe.  In the LLC era it rests with the
> LLC .  What the IAB and RSOC did have was the ability to recommend
> or request the selection of a particular candidate by the hiring
> entity.  A good portion of the problem we encountered was them not
> understanding those limitations.  The LLC has indicated an intent to
> defer to the wishes of the IAB in this matter, but legally, the role
> still resides with the LLC.
>
> With respect to hiring, in the "new" model, the RSEB can recommend
> RSE candidates to the LLC, but if the LLC isn't able to come to an
> agreement on terms with that candidate, there's nothing the RSEB can
> do to change that.  That again was no different than before.  The
> LLC - legally, but probably not ever going to happen practically -
> could actually hire whoever they wanted irrespective of any input
> from the RSEB, IAB, IESG etc.

I agree with some of this and disagree with other parts:

1. Yes, I imagine that the LLC (and ISOC before it) could legally hire
anyone they wanted and give them any title they wanted. However, this
would not make them the RSE for the purposes of our process (as was
discussed in detail in IASA 2.0). Here is the relevant text from
6635:

   The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the IAOC.  The
   IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the RSOC, which it
   appoints.

2. The purpose of these documents is in part to memorialize our
understanding of the terms under which the LLC is expected to act.
So, while 6635 I think makes clear that the LLC ought to contract
with/hire either the person that the IAB/RSOC selects or nobody,
your document appears to change that. But perhaps I've misunderstood
you. Hence some questions about your intent:

- If the LLC ignored the RSEB's chosen candidate and selected
  their own, would they be able to act as the RSE for the
  purposes of this process, such as chairing the RSEB?

- If the RSEB wishes to replace the current RSE at the end
  of their contract, what mechanism do they use to do that
  and what impact does that have on the LLC (as in the
  first question)?

> never the twain shall meet. I doubt that the RSEB is going to
> approve said documents so if the strategy espoused by the RSE is at
> odds with what the RSEB members believe is the correct path.  If the
> RSEB is mostly against the RSE time and again, and the members of
> the RSEB make those concerns known to the LLC, its unlikely that the
> LLC will extend the contract.

As noted above, this seems to me to be a material change from
the existing 6635 situation in which the LLC would not be expected
to independently determine the suitability of an RSE who the
RSOC had decided not to engage. Again, I'm speaking here of the
implications for our process, not what the LLC's legal rights
are.

But perhaps this is just a matter of me not understanding what
you have written down. Let's consider a concrete case:

The RSEB \setminus RSE wants to proceed in a certain strategic
direction (inscribing the RSEs on clay tablets say). They ask the RSE
to develop the plan to do so, but the RSE opposes it and so refuses to
do so in a timely fashion. What, if any, recourse does the RSEB have?

> 1) Strategic decisions ARE vested in the community.  It takes at
> least 5 members of the RSEB (which may or may not include the RSE)
> to approve a new document that describes changes in strategy.  The
> RSEB represents the community.  If it isn't written down, it didn't
> happen.

Sure, and that prevents the RSE from unilaterally doing bad things but
it does not prevent the RSE from effectively stalling good things they
don't agree with. See the example I gave above.

> 4) Continuity is important in this space - perhaps more so that
> you're willing to admit.  The model of an on-call consultant who
> sometimes comes in and answers questions does not support the idea
> of a dynamic and world-class publication system.  We can coast a
> while on the work that Heather and her predecessors have done, but I
> don't think we can do that for long and maintain the publication
> standards.

Indeed, we disagree on this point, but I don't think each of us
offering our unsupported assertions is going to get us very far, so
I'll refrain from arguing it at present. I will, however, note that
neither "dynamic" nor "world-class" are the words that come to mind
when I think of our present publication system.

-Ekr

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2020 20:02:29 -0400

On 9/5/2020 6:50 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 11:23 AM Michael StJohns 

That's what it says.  And you're correct that the RSE might be 
considered "illegitimate" if the LLC ignored the formal appointment and 
hired someone to do the work of the RSE, even without the actual title.  
But the LLC has the money, and as such has the veto power regardless of 
what the documents say. Appointing a non-IAB approved (or in my case 
non-RSEB recommended) RSE could end up with the LLC getting yelled at by 
the community, but it still doesn't change the reality of how the 
contracting business works.

The recourse here - as noted before - is that the RSEB could refuse to 
publish the (illegitimate) RSE's work.

>   purposes of this process, such as chairing the RSEB?

That would be an interesting discussion.  In any event the person hired 
as RSE would be doing the work - the RSEB could either approve it or not 
for publication.  My guess is that all of that would work itself out 
either by the RSE being replaced, by the RSEB being replaced, or by the 
LLC being replaced - whichever made more sense to the community.

>   and what impact does that have on the LLC (as in the

The RSEB and RSEB members may make any comments they want to the LLC.  
The LLC can assign those comments as much or as little weight as they 
feel appropriate.  That may result in the LLC asking the RSEB to set up 
a search, or for the LLC re-uping the RSE irrespective of the RSEBs 
desires.   This is pretty much how the IAB takes community comments on 
the ISE AFAICT.   The point is that the RSEB isn't there to manage the 
RSE, but to work with the RSE to direct the strategic direction of the 
RFC series.

(Consider for example an RSE that's doing what the community wants, but 
not what the RSEB wants - if the LLC gets lots of messages of support 
about the RSE, how much weight should the LLC give to the RSEB's 
comments suggesting the RSE needs to go?)

> implications for our process, not what the LLC's legal rights

I guarantee that the LLC (and the ISOC before it) made their own 
determinations of suitability - not necessarily the same ones that the 
IAB or RSOC made.  You could have someone who looked good on paper and 
wowed every member of the IAB, but  didn't meet their criteria hen the 
LLC did its due diligence.  I'd expect that to mostly come from the 
lawyers working contract issues.

I think you're making too much of this - the LLC is the contracting 
entity.   It's going to try to be doing the right thing for the 
community, and the RSEB/Search Committee will hopefully provide the LLC 
with one or more good candidates for that role.  I'd be shocked if they 
selected someone else - mainly because I don't think they want that much 
work.  But I could actually see it happening if say the search committee 
is unable to find someone, and there's a need for an interim.  Maybe 
expanding Jay's role for a while, or getting the RPC to amend the 
contract to pick up some of the need - options that the LLC might take 
to maintain the business of the IETF.

> do so in a timely fashion. What, if any, recourse does the RSEB have?

I assume you meant inscribing RFCs on clay tablets not "RSEs"?

Well, first if the RSEB was seriously convinced that clay tablets made 
sense, I'd be trying to figure out how to replace each and every one of 
the RSEB members, or I'd be looking at the voting record and replacing 
the 5 RSEB members that said this was a good idea.

If the RSEB proposes an idea that the RSE doesn't want to go along with, 
then the recourse is for the RSEB to approach the LLC or CM and ask them 
to intercede.  The LLC or CM may or may not choose to intercede and will 
have to make those decisions based on what the contract says and their 
perception of reality.

Lastly, if the RSEB feels that clay tablets are the way to go, they can 
always write their own plan and approve it themselves. Alternately, they 
can ask the LLC to hire someone specifically to write that proposal.

> don't agree with. See the example I gave above.

And clay tablets are a good thing?  I'd find this question more 
interesting if you could provide a much better example and explain how 
"good" is determined.

Again, there's nothing preventing the RSEB from doing the work itself if 
it believes it has the better solution.

We actually want someone to say no if the RSEB is making bad decisions - 
it's reputational on the RSEs part not to do things that a broader 
community would find .... stupid.    I'd expect at least this model from 
anyone I'd hire as a contractor - or why would I hire them?  I may not 
always agree with their choices, but I'm paying them for a specific set 
of expertise.

> when I think of our present publication system.
I've been around long enough to see what a bad system looks like (cf the 
IDEA series or even PKCS11 by Oasis).   The main problems with the RFC 
series appear to be pre-publication or so I opine given the data.  The 
actual publication process and model works reasonably well, with vastly 
varying qualities of submissions, and many different requirements.   The 
documents are available world wide and in a manner that allows free and 
easy access.  The documents are widely cited, and the stability of the 
references means that those cites are meaningful 20+ years later.

So, yes, we disagree.

Later, Mike

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:17:39 -0700

Thanks for your complete response which helps me understand your position

As I said in my initial review, I believe that the structure you propose
would not allow for a sufficient level of community oversight over the RSE
function. In particular, I think the RSOC/IAB/RSEB whatever needs to be
empowered to replace the RSE if they do not agree with their strategic
direction. I believe that is fairly clearly the case under 6635 and should
be the case under any new structure and is not under what you propose.

Chairs: sounds like a good topic for the interim.

-Ekr

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:02 PM Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> That's what it says.  And you're correct that the RSE might be considered
> "illegitimate" if the LLC ignored the formal appointment and hired someone
> to do the work of the RSE, even without the actual title.  But the LLC has
> the money, and as such has the veto power regardless of what the documents
> say.  Appointing a non-IAB approved (or in my case non-RSEB recommended)
> RSE could end up with the LLC getting yelled at by the community, but it
> still doesn't change the reality of how the contracting business works.
>
> That would be an interesting discussion.  In any event the person hired as
> RSE would be doing the work - the RSEB could either approve it or not for
> publication.  My guess is that all of that would work itself out either by
> the RSE being replaced, by the RSEB being replaced, or by the LLC being
> replaced - whichever made more sense to the community.
>
>
> The RSEB and RSEB members may make any comments they want to the LLC.  The
> LLC can assign those comments as much or as little weight as they feel
> appropriate.  That may result in the LLC asking the RSEB to set up a
> search, or for the LLC re-uping the RSE irrespective of the RSEBs desires.
>   This is pretty much how the IAB takes community comments on the ISE
> AFAICT.   The point is that the RSEB isn't there to manage the RSE, but to
> work with the RSE to direct the strategic direction of the RFC series.
>
> not what the RSEB wants - if the LLC gets lots of messages of support about
> the RSE, how much weight should the LLC give to the RSEB's comments
> suggesting the RSE needs to go?)
>
>
>
> determinations of suitability - not necessarily the same ones that the IAB
> or RSOC made.  You could have someone who looked good on paper and wowed
> every member of the IAB, but  didn't meet their criteria hen the LLC did
> its due diligence.  I'd expect that to mostly come from the lawyers working
> contract issues.
>
> entity.   It's going to try to be doing the right thing for the community,
> and the RSEB/Search Committee will hopefully provide the LLC with one or
> more good candidates for that role.  I'd be shocked if they selected
> someone else - mainly because I don't think they want that much work.  But
> I could actually see it happening if say the search committee is unable to
> find someone, and there's a need for an interim.  Maybe expanding Jay's
> role for a while, or getting the RPC to amend the contract to pick up some
> of the need - options that the LLC might take to maintain the business of
> the IETF.
>
>
>
> sense, I'd be trying to figure out how to replace each and every one of the
> RSEB members, or I'd be looking at the voting record and replacing the 5
> RSEB members that said this was a good idea.
>
> then the recourse is for the RSEB to approach the LLC or CM and ask them to
> intercede.  The LLC or CM may or may not choose to intercede and will have
> to make those decisions based on what the contract says and their
> perception of reality.
>
> always agree with their choices, but I'm paying them for a specific set of
> expertise.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:27:15 -0500

I'd like to thank both of you for being clear in your arguments as well. 
This is shaping up to be two competing, mutually incompatible visions 
regarding accountability. While there is certainly room for refinement 
to both visions to make them more palatable to proponents of the other 
side, we, as a community, are clearly going to have to choose one rough 
direction over the other.

I agree with Eric's general concerns about the path of recourse 
indicated by draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb and the subsequent clarifying 
comments. There's one thing in particular that sticks out as highly 
problematic:

On 9/5/2020 7:02 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> If the RSEB proposes an idea that the RSE doesn't want to go along 
> with, then the recourse is for the RSEB to approach the LLC or CM and 
> ask them to intercede.  The LLC or CM may or may not choose to 
> intercede and will have to make those decisions based on what the 
> contract says and their perception of reality.
>

 From the perspective of designed accountability, this is asking the LLC 
to take on ownership of decisions that are clearly outside of its 
intended purview. In the IASA2 conversations, the LLC was envisioned as 
a support function, not a deliberative one (which is why, e.g., it is 
part of no appeals chain). I'm looking through RFC 8711, and -- aside 
from the "compliance" bullet, which can bear on contract and personnel 
decisions in very limited and legally-required ways -- really don't see 
how one can conclude that it would be appropriate for the LLC to be the 
sole arbiter of whether an RSE is renewed or dismissed.

It seems to me that the primary complaint that initiated this current 
effort is a belief that the community needs to be more directly involved 
in determining whether the RSE is performing his or her duties to the 
satisfaction of the community. This proposal is a giant step away from 
fixing that.

/a

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 21:43:19 +0100

Hi,

I agree with Adam that this conversation is bringing a good degree of clarity.

But there's something here I don't understand.

If you employ someone and they don't deliver (wilfully or because they lack the skills) you may choose to fire them.
If the hiring is on the recommendation of a person or group, then that person or group can also recommend firing.
But if the contract is held by a body, it is only that body that can terminate the contract.

Thus, are we just debating the strength of a recommendation?

In contracts I am used to, one body (usually the "contracts department") holds the contract: they sign it at the start and they are formally responsible for termination. But the request to them to start a contract, the formal acceptance of deliverables or work done, the authorisation for payment, and any request to terminate comes from another body (usually the "engineering department").

I can't see how anything we are proposing is different, but we may be debating how much "community control" there is in the selection, acceptance, and termination parts. The request for community control may come from a fear that "the wrong thing may happen" or "I want to be able to participate in the decision-making and influence the result". If so, we need to move beyond that and understand delegated authority. When delegated authority goes wrong, the community can replace the people who got it wrong. We do not need community micro-management of all delegated decisions (although consultation and discussion is a fine thing).

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Rfced-future <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: 07 September 2020 20:27
To: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>; Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft

/a

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:54:42 -0700

Hi Adrian,

I think there are three questions here:

1. Who is responsible for making the decision to hire?
2. Who is responsible for making the decision to renew a contract?
3. Who is responsible for making the decision to terminate a contract
before renewal?

Let's take the first two first. In the current structure under 6635, the
decision to contract with a given person is made by a community-appointed
body which is responsible for strategy (the IAB delegated the RSOC).
Without their approval, no hiring can happen. Then once they approve, the
LLC is responsible for actually executing a contract. If they can't come to
terms, the IAB/RSOC may need to select someone else, but the LLC doesn't
have the latitude to just hire someone who the IAB/RSOC hasn't approved
(again, they can legally do so but they would be in violation of 6635 and
that person wouldn't have any authority within our process). This matches
the situation you indicate where there is a contracts/legal department who
is responsible for actually negotiating with the contractor who is selected
by the department that actually wants the services, but they don't hire
people which that department doesn't want. IOW, this isn't about strength
of recommendation but rather about who is responsible for vendor selection.

The question of termination prior to renewal is more complicated; in some
cases contracts are written with easy termination and in some without, and
that's a question we should have some opinions on, but is secondary to the
question above.

-Ekr

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 1:43 PM Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If you employ someone and they don't deliver (wilfully or because they
> lack the skills) you may choose to fire them.
> If the hiring is on the recommendation of a person or group, then that
> person or group can also recommend firing.
> In contracts I am used to, one body (usually the "contracts department")
> holds the contract: they sign it at the start and they are formally
> responsible for termination. But the request to them to start a contract,
> the formal acceptance of deliverables or work done, the authorisation for
> payment, and any request to terminate comes from another body (usually the
> "engineering department").
>
> I can't see how anything we are proposing is different, but we may be
> debating how much "community control" there is in the selection,
> acceptance, and termination parts. The request for community control may
> come from a fear that "the wrong thing may happen" or "I want to be able to
> participate in the decision-making and influence the result". If so, we
> need to move beyond that and understand delegated authority. When delegated
> authority goes wrong, the community can replace the people who got it
> wrong. We do not need community micro-management of all delegated decisions
> (although consultation and discussion is a fine thing).
>
> Best,
> Adrian
>

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 15:56:14 -0500

On 9/7/2020 3:43 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>   When delegated authority goes wrong, the community can replace the people who got it wrong. We do not need community micro-management of all delegated decisions (although consultation and discussion is a fine thing).

I think we're largely on the same page here. My key concern about the 
proposal that this thread is discussing is that it is pushing for the 
LLC to be "the people who get it right/wrong," and that's entirely the 
wrong body. Yes, they legally hold the contract because that's what the 
LLC is defined to be: the thing that legally owns the stuff that the 
IETF needs to have legally owned. But, again, the LLC doesn't have any 
deliberative functions, and it's pretty clear (both from the IASA2 
conversations and the text in RFC 8711) that this was entirely 
intentional. If we want to re-open discussions on the role of the LLC to 
this degree, I think we're moving way outside the scope of this IAB 
activity and towards an "IASA3" proposal.

/a

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 08:57:31 +1200

Adam,

On 08-Sep-20 07:27, Adam Roach wrote:
...> It seems to me that the primary complaint that initiated this current 
> satisfaction of the community.

I'm not at all sure about that. Who made that complaint?

My complaint is that the mishmash consisting of the IAB's view of its job,
the RSOC's idea of an "oversight" mechanism, the matrix management mess
created by the LLC and the RSE both having contract management authority,
and conflicting opinions about the breadth of purpose of the RFC series,
combined to make the RSE's job impossible.

   Brian

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 16:24:09 -0500

> I'm not at all sure about that. Who made that complaint?

There's been a lot said both on mailing lists and at plenaries that 
points in this direction: significant swaths of the conversation last 
June/July on [email-masked] could be fairly summarized as "the community 
should have been looped into this process earlier." There's even a 
message on June 20, 2019 where you offered a position of "community 
input on how the RFC Series is working and what needs to be adjusted 
would be the obligatory first step," which is clearly asking for more 
direct involvement.

Don't read more into my statement than I intend: I would never want to 
see some kind of management by consensus in plenary, and I don't think 
anyone has seriously proposed that. What I'm saying is that there's a 
clear signal that the community wants to be more involved rather than 
less involved, and that Mike's characterization in the message I was 
replying to was driving in the opposite direction.

If you think I'm wrong in my evaluation of what the community expressed, 
I'd appreciate you being clear about whether you think the community 
wanted to be less involved than they were last June or exactly as 
involved as they were last June, since those are really the only two 
other options.

/a

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:26:30 +1200

> would be the obligatory first step," which is clearly asking for more 

Ah, OK, I see what you mean. It seems to me that was largely directed
at the way the RSOC seemed to be operating, prior to the RSE's resignation.
 
> replying to was driving in the opposite direction.

Yes, and I do of course support a more open body than Mike's Board.
That's why my draft borrows very heavily from Martin's.

> involved as they were last June, since those are really the only two 

No, not at all. It was mainly the word "primary" that triggered me.

   Brian