John, On 16-Oct-20 22:49, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --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, Respectfully disagree. RFC 8711 explicitly mentions "support outreach and communications" under "Executive Director and Staff Responsibilities". Previously I would have expected something like this to be done by ISOC, but itsm that we intentionally changed that. Regards Brian > 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 > > > >
