On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:46:49PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: > 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? Speaking just for myself, I do not have an idea about whether employee or contractor or other is better. It's not really clear to me that I should (with my IESG hat on, as opposed to as a member of the community), either -- the IESG is generally seen as the technical management group for the IETF and I don't really have a reason to think that this sort of HR-like activity falls under that scope. It seems more like something that the IETF LLC Board is designed for, and I have plenty on my plate already. That said, if I become convinced that it is something under the scope of the IESG, I will of course attempt to inform myself and form an opinion to the best of my ability, but I don't consider myself very qualified to do so at the moment. -Ben > The change to the LLC may have left a number of assumptions hanging... > > Thanks - Mike > >
