Hi Stephen > On 6 Jan 2025, at 16:39, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Jay, > > I think I see how the LLC and AMS benefit from this and also perhaps > RPC staff. So this is not an unreasonable result. > > However, can you explain how the Internet benefits The note below explains that in some detail. If you have any specific question about that detail, I would be happy to try and answer it. > and why doing this > as a fait-accompli announcement isn't in itself a form of damage to > the volunteer ethos that we claim to espouse where the community and > not the LLC remain in actual control? The community is in actual control but in RFC 8711 the community delegates contractual decisions to the LLC and this action is in accordance with that delegation as it is solely about how the RPC service is sourced, rather than what the RPC service delivers. RFC 8711 is explicit around this type of change where it says "The division of responsibilities between staff and contractors is at the discretion of the IETF Executive Director and their staff", though this was an LLC Board decision given the value and significance of this contract. It’s also important to note that this was not a one-sided decision - our long-standing contractor, AMS, were fully involved as documented in my note below. > I think the process there is a > bit smelly, even if the result is ok. I see no reason why such a > putative change could not have been raised with the community before > being actioned. While the LLC’s default setting is for transparency, this particular change is primarily around how a team of twelve are employed and, as I think we are all familiar with from our own employment, discussions around employment contracts require a degree of sensitivity. In this case that includes confidentiality, as RFC 8711 foresaw: "It was recognized that there will naturally be confidentiality requirements about some aspects of contracting, personnel matters, and other narrow areas". An open community process regarding any administrative service can lead to a great deal of uncertainty as it rarely sticks to its defined scope. Confidentiality here primarily protects the staff by not making them worry that their jobs are on the line, protects the service by not having experienced people leave due to the uncertainty and protects the contractor in the event the negotiations fall through. The situations where this might apply are rare and so this should not be considered the start of a trend, but if this still doesn’t satisfy, then I see that as potentially indicating a gap around community expectations, again as foreseen by RFC 8711: "Establishing the framework to allow the IETF LLC to staff each administrative function as appropriate may require the IETF community to document its consensus expectations in areas where no documentation currently exists". > Lastly, just as a comment, this seems to continue a process of > increasing LLC headcount. That's unsurprising (that good people try > expand their influence for what they consider very good reasons), but > is IMO undesirable. There is no net increase in personnel here. The RPC contract has always been a headcount based contract rather than an output based contract, and no more roles are added by this. What it does mean is that the LLC has more direct control of the RPC, for the detailed reasons set out below. cheers Jay > > Thanks, > S. > > > On 05/01/2025 23:30, IETF Executive Director wrote: >> After an extensive review of recent developments in the RFC Editor >> function, the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) and Association >> Management Solutions LLC (AMS) have agreed that the IETF LLC will >> assume management of existing RFC Production Center (RPC) staff, >> under an Employer of Record arrangement with AMS, the employer of >> the RPC team. >> # Background to the RPC >> The RPC is the team of professional editors that prepares and >> publishes the output of the Editorial, IAB, IETF, IRTF, and ISE >> Streams, which make up the RFC Series. Once Internet-Drafts are >> approved by the various streams, the RPC editors format and edit the >> documents, and then work with the authors to produce publication- >> ready RFCs per defined policies and guidelines. >> The RPC has been hosted at several organizations since it began, >> including ISI/USC, CNRI, and most recently AMS on contract to the >> IETF LLC. >> # Need for change >> The RFC Editor function has been going through a period of major >> developments for the last two to three years, and this is likely to >> continue for at least another two years. These developments include >> the introduction of XML, the new RFC Editor model in RFC 9280 that >> introduced the RSWG/RSAB and removed the RSE role, the RPC tools >> modernisation, the ongoing requests for GitHub and Markdown editing, >> and the need to develop a new SLA. These developments have brought >> the RPC closer to the IETF community by giving it more >> responsibility for editing decisions, more direct contact with >> community members who want different services, and more direct >> community reporting requirements. Ultimately, these developments >> acknowledge the integral and vital role of the RPC, but they have >> put the RPC leadership in a difficult position as arms-length >> contractors. >> # Changing how the RPC is managed >> After an extensive review, the IETF LLC and AMS have concluded that >> the best way to address these issues is for the IETF LLC to assume >> management of existing RPC staff, under an Employer of Record >> arrangement with AMS, the employer of the RPC team. This >> arrangement will allow the IETF LLC to directly manage RPC strategic >> direction, evolution, training, and resource allocation, while >> ensuring that RPC staff retain the stability of the AMS home which >> they have enjoyed over the past 15 years. This employment >> arrangement is in line with how most of the LLC staff are employed, >> including the Executive Director, not as direct employees of the LLC >> but contracted through a professional services firm. >> This will provide the RPC with the alignment and authority needed to >> address these developments and so help to ensure the RFC Series >> continued evolution and stability while providing management >> oversight and appropriate resource allocation. >> While the IETF LLC and AMS were conducting this review, AMS was also >> reviewing the internal management of the RPC and the distribution of >> the increased workload. AMS, the IETF LLC, and the staff concerned >> have agreed to introduce a new management structure for the RPC, >> starting at the same time as the transfer. This sees the role of >> Director, RFC Production Center split into two; Director of RPC >> Operations and Director of RPC Communications and Strategy. >> # Change to cost structure >> The new arrangement with AMS is forecasted to provide a cost savings >> due to the transfer of management responsibilities to existing LLC >> staff. >> # Implementation >> The change is effective from Jan 1, 2025. > -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx
