--On Friday, 10 September, 2004 08:49 -0400 scott bradner
<sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> imo we should start a search for a Administrative Director now
Good idea, except...
* We have only the vaguest of job descriptions
* We don't know who the individual would actually be
working for organizationally, which could make a
difference in who would be interested
* We don't know enough about organizational structure to
be able to have a serious discussion about benefits,
etc., which could make a difference. We don't even
know, for sure, if we have budget for salary, since that
presumably would need to be approved by the Board of
ISOC and/or the hypothetical foundation.
* We can't make any assurances about how long the job
commitment is good for, because we don't have a
structure to put around it.
And, with regard to the "contractor" question, there are two
ways of doing "contractor":
(1) The individual is hired as an independent
contractor, and hence is responsible for his or her own
insurance, benefits, taxes, etc., but is otherwise
essentially an employee. In particular, we select the
individual who is going to be in the role. The problem
with those models is that sometimes the taxing
authorities don't like them and pronounce words that, in
US-speak are "statutory employee". Those are _very_ bad
words; for an explanation contact your friendly attorney
or accountant.
(2) We hire a company to supply us someone. Problem is
that, at the bottom line, they pick the someone.
Neither of these are consistent with the level of control which
the IETF leadership (or their spokespeople) think they need. Of
course, that is another unresolved issue.
Sorry.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf