Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 18: Contract monitor(s) outside LLC?

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 09:15:44 +0200

Hi Mike,

Coming back to this...

On 16.08.21 03:40, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 8/14/2021 6:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
>> This question was driven by text in your original proposal last 
>> year.  The question is whether we need to address text in this draft 
>> to discuss a contract monitor.  Is this issue OBE or is there text 
>> you believe is needed?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>
> This is tied inextricably to how much direction we purport to give to 
> the LLC over hiring, firing, and management practices.  If we remove 
> the various text directing that the LLC do x, y and z for evaluations, 
> this can be removed.  If not, then I want to be clear that the LLC 
> can't just delegate its contract management responsibilities to a 
> random group of people ala the RSOC.

There are two pieces of text in the draft that are relevant: Sections 
4.1 and 4.2, which provide avenues for community engagement but 
ultimately let hiring and management rest with the LLC.  Given how they 
currently read...

>
> Typically, contract managers are employees of the contracting 
> organization, or contractors specifically hired AND PAID to manage 
> other contractors. 

For the forseeable future I would expect that this person is the 
Executive Director (Jay and his successors).  Would you agree?  If it 
turned out not to be (he formed a committee), could the matter be 
addressed at that time?

Eliot

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 16:25:08 -0400

On 9/6/2021 3:15 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> the various text directing that the LLC do x, y and z for 
>> evaluations, this can be removed.  If not, then I want to be clear 
>> that the LLC can't just delegate its contract management 
>> responsibilities to a random group of people ala the RSOC.
>
> ultimately let hiring and management rest with the LLC.  Given how 
> they currently read...
>
>>
The key point here is that whoever ends up with the "authority" needs 
also to hold the "responsibility".   For Jay, or a member of the LLC 
staff or board, there's an obvious fiduciary responsibility so I have no 
issue with that.  Hiring a PM and paying them to manage contracts is 
also reasonable business practice as the "responsibility" gets written 
into the contract or the business practices of the LLC.  What I'm trying 
to avoid, not only for the RSCE, but ideally for any future hires such 
as the RPC or other infrastructure is the ability for the LLC to devolve 
its authority and responsibility outside of those boundaries.

All that said, the less we chain the LLC's behavior, the better. I trust 
that the LLC will consider the history of why we're here when it makes 
its decisions and I think there's enough record for that purpose.   If 
the LLC ignores the record and does this anyways, it will be interesting 
to see what happens with a more litigious RSCE in the event of a bad 
outcome.

So "The LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the 
engagement of the RSCE and the RPC." or similar words to that affect 
with none of the expansions that require the LLC to indulge in exterior 
back seat driving of any sort with respect to those relationships.

Mike

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 10:23:05 +1200

On 07-Sep-21 08:25, Michael StJohns wrote:

<snip>

> back seat driving of any sort with respect to those relationships.

Yes.

   Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:55:00 +0200

Hi Mike,

On 06.09.21 22:25, Michael StJohns wrote:
> with none of the expansions that require the LLC to indulge in 
> exterior back seat driving of any sort with respect to those 
> relationships. 

Thanks for this.  What we have today in Section 4.1 is:

> The IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSEA.

Does that cover your point with regard to the RSEA/RSCE?

And then separately for the RPC we have the following:

>    This document does not specify the exact relationship between the
>    IETF LLC and the RPC function; for example, the RPC function could be
>    provided by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF
>    LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF
>    LLC could work with independent contractors for some or all aspects
>    of the RPC function.  The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF
>    LLC and the IETF Executive Director to determine.
>
>    The IETF LLC has authority over negotiating performance targets for
>    the RPC and also has responsibility for ensuring that those targets
>    are adhered to.  The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to
>    convene a committee to complete these activities.
>
>    If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the
>    performance of the RPC, they can request that the IETF LLC look into
>    the matter.  Even if the IETF LLC opts to delegate this activity,
>    concerns should be raised with the IETF LLC.  The IETF LLC is
>    ultimately responsible to the community via the mechanisms outlined
>    in its charter.

Does this address your point about the RPC?

Eliot

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:55:34 -0600

With my editorial hat on, I will wordsmith this text slightly in -02 to
incorporate the broader point that Mike made.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:55 AM Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:16:09 +0200

People should review -02 to see that they are comfortable with the 
results.  Please comment by October 6th.

Eliot

On 13.09.21 23:55, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> With my editorial hat on, I will wordsmith this text slightly in -02 
> to incorporate the broader point that Mike made.
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:55 AM Eliot Lear <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Mike,
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>