On 10/11/2020 7:23 PM, IETF Executive Director wrote:
The IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) has drafted a proposed IETF LLC Community Engagement Policy [1] that sets out how IETF LLC board, staff and contractors will engage with the IETF community, including
* what involvement board, staff and contractors may have in the the development of RFCs;
* what engagement they may have with the NomCom;
* How the IETF LLC seeks community feedback;
* What mechanisms the IETF LLC uses for community engagement.
The policy proposes a new mailing list ietf-admin@xxxxxxxx for the discussion of IETF LLC related matters.
The IETF LLC now seeks community feedback on this proposed policy. Please provide feedback by 26 October 2020 00:00 UTC using any of the following methods:
* Raising an issue on the Github repository [2]
* Direct to the IETF Executive Director at exec-director@xxxxxxxx
* Direct to the IETF LLC Board (not including the IETF Executive Director) at llc-board-only@xxxxxxxx
* To the ietf@xxxxxxxx list
[1] https://github.com/ietf-llc/community-engagement-policy-consultation/blob/master/DRAFT%20Community%20Engagement%20Policy.md
[2] https://github.com/ietf-llc/community-engagement-policy-consultation/issues
I have so many problems with this - where to begin:
1) The Secretariat and RPC members are all employees of their respective
organizations, and it's that organization, and only that organization
that *might* have the right to impose behavioral controls on them. I
say "might" because what they can impose on their employees is usually
fairly circumscribed by the law.
2) It's unclear what you're trying to accomplish here and why you're
trying to mark these folk off as second-class citizens unable to
participate in the IETF even to the extent of any random passersby. If
there's some actual form of conflict of interest you're trying to deal
with here, it's not obvious from the text. This feels way too much like
the "... is just a contractor" comment I got from one of the I* folk a
while back without any real reason for it. We've been hearing the
mantra of inclusiveness for a while from the I*, I guess I never
expected it to mean "except for our contractors".
3) With respect to any misbehavior/poor interactions with the I* on the
part of the Secretariat, RPC, RSE or other contractors, I certainly want
the Nomcom to hear about it. That includes, but is not limited to,
harassment, arrogance, brusqueness, and any other interaction that would
tend to reduce the efficiency of the IETF community, or make any of the
participants feel subordinate to any of the I*. Any policy that
restricts the ability to provide information to the Nomcom is a non-starter.
4) With respect to folding in the LLC Code of Conduct to the independent
contractors, my guess is that none of this applies or can apply unless
its actually incorporated into their contracts, and sections 8 and 9
especially might be offensive to most contractors. With respect to
section 7 - that's usually already incorporated into the contract.
Sections 10 and 11 are violations of the law, and are generally already
incorporated. In any event, assuming that US law applies to a lot of
this, attempting to constrain "how" a contractor does their work might
bring the tax people down on you.
Mike
