Hi Subramanian There’s a lot here and it’s not clear to me if your questions are because you have specific concerns with the policy that I should be tracking as issues. > On 13/10/2020, at 3:51 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > At 04:23 PM 11-10-2020, 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 purpose of this proposed policy is unclear as it covers conflict of interest and conduct. It could be interpreted as a policy against a "speak up" culture. Did the IETF LLC consider updating the existing conflict of interest and code of conduct policies instead of creating another policy? Because it goes broader than either of those. e.g. the section on 'Mechanisms'. > Is there a list of individuals who are formally authorized to act on behalf of the IETF LLC? Yes. Board and staff always, Secretariat generally, and our accountants, lawyers, Tools Team PM, NOC Lead and others on specific issues. > Why is the IETF LLC specifying that the policy would be applicable for Association Management Solutions personnel when it is already covered under "Work Standards"? It isn’t. > Does the "occasionally include contributing to or authoring RFCs" statement conflict with the Intellectual Property clause in existing contracts? No. > Why is Association Management Solutions being asked to be supportive and helpful? As a reminder, the policy is based on roles not who delivers them and covers multiple roles: "When contributing to community discussions for any of these subjects, staff, Secretariat and RPC should aim to be supportive and helpful to the process and should not limit or otherwise interfere with the ability of the community to engage." Do you think that there are times when we (all the roles above, including me) should engage in a way that is not supportive and helpful? > Why are there urgent consultations? Sometimes we need to act quickly. For example, the last urgent consultation was about making fee waivers for IETF 108 unlimited and had to be conducted in 48 hours due to the fixed timing of the meeting. It is conceivable there will be another and putting some structure in place before that happens again is a sensible plan. > Why is the IETF LLC so concerned about staff or contractors retaliating against a LLC board member that it has to include that in the proposed policy? This is a broad policy that covers a number of subjects of which NomCom interaction is just one. BTW ascribing/questioning motives, particularly with an emotive preface such as "so concerned", distracts from your underlying question. > > The "clear potential for a conflict of interest" in the "NomCom" section does not make sense as it is not applicable to a process. I’m not sure I understand what you mean - the process is the NomCom appointment process. > > Why is an IETF LLC blog post an event for ietf-announce? The IETF LLC has a strong commitment to transparency, which the community has repeatedly requested and/or supported. Until recently we have not really had stats about blog readership and so we err on the side of caution by also using ietf-announce to make sure that transparency commitment is fulfilled. Jay > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director jay@xxxxxxxx
