The policy cited seems strange in multiple regards.
In regard to the LLC Board, the policy states that it applies to the board, and then does not seem to say anything clear about what the policy is for board members. Maybe I missed it? More likely, given that most board members are also community participants (the extreme case being the IETF Chair) I suspect that there is not much to say. So don't claim the policy applies to them. Or put it more explicitly that there is nothing to say about the board.
While that’s true for two of the sections, 'Development of RFCs' and 'NomCom', the other two sections, 'Community Feedback' and 'Mechanisms' apply equally to board and staff. Does that need to be made clearer?
The restrictions on the RPC seem to go too far. While it is true that most of the people who work for the RPC are not IETF participants, some of them are. And they should be permitted to do so.
My understanding is that this is not the case, but it is possible that some of the temporary RPC staff are and so I will check and add as an issue if that is the case.
And the current person filling the role of RSE is also an active IETF participant and I would not expect the LLC to prohibit him from participating in IETF activities.
The RSE is not part of the RPC (as per RFC 8728) and so not subject to those provisions. (BTW the current Temporary RFC Series Project Manager is not regarded as filling the RSE role).
The only one that seems to be captured properly is the Contractors other than Secretariat / RPC.
There is also the interesting complication that the RPC staffers have a business relationship with the secretariat. We normally veyr much want the Secretariat to stay out of IETF business. Is the distinction between the RPC and AMS really that clear? My understanding is that at least some of the RPC are employed by AMS?
They are all employed/contracted by AMS. AMS provides us with
- RPC
- Secretariat
-- Clerical
-- Meetings
-- IT
Jay
