--On Friday, October 16, 2020 21:48 +1300 Jay Daley
<jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi John
>
> Yes we are paying for this. No there was no RFP as David is
> pretty much unique in this area. The cost is extremely small
> even with our time factored in and is independent of the
> number of subscribers so extending its availability to the
> entire community is the same cost as if we had kept it just
> for use by the comms team. The cost is so small that we are
> well into micromanagement if the community needs to be
> consulted about a cost of this magnitude.
Jay,
It isn't the cost (although I think I was legitimately curious
about that), it is the principle (actually several of them),
including:
(1) This appears to me to be an expansion of the role and scope
of the LLC, carried out without community consultation, much
less initiated from the community determining that it is needed.
Noting that one can get an unevaluated summary of news items
mentioning the IETf for free from multiple sources, the concern
about expansion of roles of the LLC and the comms team, would be
legitimate even if the comms team decided it needed a curated
news summary for its own internal purposes, but that would at
least not raise the issues under (3) below.
(2) If there are costs involved and/or the work is being done
under a contract with the LLC, I believe that the principle is
that the LLC issues public RFPs and competes the activity. I
haven't noticed an LLC policy that says that principle does not
apply if contracting or hiring is involved when the amount is
small or what that amount threshold is. In particular, if a
hypothetical RPP were exposed to the community, I believe (based
on recent comments from others if nothing else) there would be
very strong input that accountability for accuracy and means of
giving feedback per perceived errors or omissions be spelled
out. And that brings us to...
(3) If this is going to be made publicly available, using an
IETF web site and IETF resources, the issues several others have
raised about accuracy and agreement about what things mean
apply. Even if disclaimers are present, our publishing one
point of view rather than opening things up to at least, e.g.,
letters to the editor/curator, implies a kind of endorsement.
(4) We could debate whether David is the best person on earth to
do this (perhaps I would agree with you and the LLC that he is)
but he is by no means unique (if you believe he is, I suggest
that is a lack of due diligence). There are competitors to his
other work (whether the LLC thinks they are better or worse) and
other people working in the general area, some of whom are quite
good. Whether any of them would be willing is a question whose
answer cannot be determined without asking, and you and Greg,
speaking for and committing the LLC as you have pointed out in
other notes, have apparently chosen to not ask.
(5) I may regret mentioning this, but there is also a potential
overlap here with publications that lie within the scope of the
RFC Series Independent Submissions Editor. Noting that
summaries of IETF and standardization activities have been
published in the RFC Series in the past, if someone came to the
ISE and suggested periodic publication of a news summary (as an
opinion piece by the person making the suggestion and subject to
editorial review), while I'd predict the ISE would decline the
opportunity for a number of pragmatic reasons, it would not
obviously be out of scope, nor would it be out of scope for the
ISE to recommend to the LLC that it provide a stipend to the
person doing the work (again, without judging what decision
would be made). To the extent to which we see the independent
submission process as supporting the IETF's standardization
efforts (even or especially when documents are published the
criticize the IETF's work and conclusions), the LLC is pushing
the boundaries of that principle as well.
As I have said to you in another context, the question is not
whether or not the LLC can do things like this, ignoring or
rejecting some or all of the principles above because we agree
that it can. Whether it is wise, appropriate, or the best way
to serve the IETF and its objectives is another matter.
YMMD and probably will.
john
