On 8/1/2019 5:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
I'm now an ISOC employee and not speaking for it. I was not an ISOC
employee at the time of the stuff I will mention below, which is
relevant to this discussion.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 01:20:35PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
when i was on the iaoc, it did performance review and salary recco for
iad.
When I was on the IAOC, in different roles, we were supposed to do
that but found we couldn't. This is because in fact the IETF and by
extension the IAOC had no formal place in the ISOC corporate structure
and therefore could not even plausibly be included in the management
chain of ISOC. So, bizarrely, we were in a situation where we were
supposed to evaluate someone's performance without reference to the
performance goals or evaluation as previously agreed, because those
were employment documents and therefore protected under applicable
law.
Indeed, this wart in the IAOC-supervises-IAD arrangement was prominent
(at least for me) in the list of things to address during the IASA 2
discussions (so it's not the first time I've mentioned it). In my
opinion, they were so addressed during the creation of the LLC.
I am aware that earlier periods of the IAOC relationship was less
structured and perhaps less rigid about the handling of documents like
this. One of the things about organizations that get older, more
mature, and that have more money in the bank is that they start to
evaluate risk differently, and that may be part of what happened in
this case (I don't know, since I wasn't responsible for the handling
of these documents). But I found I definitely had a problem in
undertaking my duty.
So you're basically saying that what was in 4071 didn't reflect the
actual legal landscape. E.g. the authorities granted to the IAOC to
manage/control/evaluate the IAD didn't really exist and there wasn't
actually a formal agreement with ISOC to allow for the setting of
performance goals or even hiring and firing?
And I seem to remember in one of the message chains a comment that the
6635 language that said "evaluate the RSE" got short shrift from ISOC as
well? So, from the ISOC's point of view, as the contract owner, at
least part of 6635 did not reflect the actual legal landscape - correct?
Now you have me curious - what were the dates that the RSE and IAD
contract(s) were assigned from the ISOC to the LLC and accepted by the
individual contractors?
Later, Mike
