Brian, Mumble. Point conceded. Thanks. john --On Saturday, October 17, 2020 08:44 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 >> >> >> >>
