Hi Mike, > On Aug 1, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alissa - > > Pruned - other comments in line. > > On 7/31/2019 2:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>>>> You could make it the LLC under an "employee with a contract model" and assign them to the LLC to manage, but there would still be a lot of things to work out. Then there's "advancement" or the lack thereof. For Ray, we punted - he was really a contracted for employee by the IAOC of a larger company (ISOC) as far as I can tell. >>>> Ray was an ISOC employee. >>> *sigh* Either I need to take writing lessons or others need to read more closely. I'm not sure what the correct answer is. >>> >>> Yes, Ray was an ISOC employee and as an employee was a contracted for resource of the IETF. That contract might have been implicit or explicit, in kind or with a dollar value attached, but it was a contract between the IETF and the ISOC for Ray's services. Maybe "contracted for employee, by the IAOC, of a larger company (ISOC)" would have been clearer? >> Since the thread had turned in the direction of discussing the details of specific employment relationships, it seems like the subtleties here matter. Since the IETF was organized as an activity of ISOC while Ray was IAD, there was no written contract to speak of between the IETF or the IAOC and ISOC that I’m aware of (though happy to be corrected if I’m wrong). The understanding of the IAD role was documented in RFC 4071. I wasn’t thinking of RFC 4071 as an “implicit contract” when I read your mail, but perhaps that is one way of thinking about it. > > > Given that Ray had no responsibilities (AFAIK) for ISOC duties, and that ISOC hired him on our behalf and that (from 4071): > > "Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the direction of the IAOC. A committee of the IAOC is responsible for hiring and firing the IAD, for reviewing the IAD's performance, and for setting the compensation of the IAD.", > > it's reasonable to cast the relationship between the IAD and the IETF as a contract relationship of a flavor. Even though 4071 said the above, it was all with the consent of the ISOC who was Ray's employer, and an attempt to do something in this vein that was against the ISOC HR policies would have been problematic even if "authorized" by 4071. Even an attempt to fire Ray might have been met with some really interesting conversations between the ISOC and the IETF and perhaps lawyers. > > You now have me curious - was there a separate agreement or MOA between the IAOC and ISOC covering the employment of the IAD where the ISOC agreed to the above? Not that I’m aware of. > >> >> 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? The IETF LLC Board did not specify this in the announcement of the executive director search [1]. The search is ongoing as Jason reported at the plenary. Best, Alissa [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/SyA1SbjCLw_9GBChHn-PV9t1xBA > > Later, Mike > > > >> >> Best, >> Alissa >> >> >>> Later, Mike >>> >>> >
