On 8/1/2019 5:13 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:16:07PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi Alissa -
Pruned - other comments in line.
Also pruning...
On 7/31/2019 2:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
By contrast, Portia was not an employee of ISOC. She was a contractor to ISOC before the IETF LLC was created, and is now a contractor to the IETF LLC, under your definition of “contractor/consultant.”
Given that Portia is acting or interim (I don't actually remember which
at this point), I don't know that her contractor status matters all that
much or means anything for the future RSE or even for the future IAD.
What's a lot more interesting is what you (singular and I*) see as the
target relationship for the to-be-hired permanent IAD - contract with
LLC, employee of the LLC, contract with the IAD's employing
organization, something else?
As a potentially implicated party, do you see "I*" as just referring to
IETF LLC, or to the IESG, IAB, and potentially other bodies whose names
start with I?
Thanks,
Ben
Heh.
I know there was an RFP for the IAD, I don't know if that RFP listed a
preferred form of engagement or if that was left blank. If you know what
the preferred form as was listed in the RFP is, I'd be happy to accept
that as an answer. If it was left blank, I'm wondering whether the
current I* leadership (LLC, IAB, IESG) has an idea of where they want to
go with respect to adding overhead positions (e.g. employee or
contractor or some other form of engagement) and why that form? If the
best candidates prefer another form of engagement, are we prepared to go
in that direction?
The change to the LLC may have left a number of assumptions hanging...
Thanks - Mike
