Subject: Re: Adminrest: BCP -03: Compensation for IAOC members

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:14:48 -0500 (EST)

thanks to Jonne for bringing this up - I agree that some text about this
should be in the document but I disagree on what it should say.  

imo - the IAOC members should not be compensated for their time but
I think its reasonable for them to be reimbursed for expenses for
travel to meetings not held in the same place and time as IETF
meetings (or just before or after an IETF at the same location) - since
I would hope that almost all of the work of the IAOC shoudl be done
over the net or by phone I would not think this would come up
that often but it might during startup (revaluating RFP responses
for example) - doing this enables peopel who do not have strong
money support to still be able to be on the IAOC

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:57:16 +0200

Scott,

> money support to still be able to be on the IAOC

I admit that I maybe have too much a view point of someone working for a
relatively large company. I try to approach this from a position where
the IAOC itself does not become a significant cost for IASA.  

However, as these are the people that are responsible for setting the
budget and supervising the finances of the IASA and there is no real
owner to control the expenses it would be clearer to have the IAOC
members being responsible for their own expenses.

If we would decide to reimburse traveling I think we cannot make the
distinction between meetings co-located with IETF or not. There will
always be people to argue that they wouldn't or couldn't come to the
IETF and travel to IAOC meetings during the IETF should also be
reimbursed.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:08:12 -0500 (EST)

> relatively large company.

not everyone does

> I try to approach this from a position where

I agree - see my note - I do not think that face to face meetings are
all that needed but might happen for special things

> members being responsible for their own expenses.

that limits who can be on the IAOC to people who can afford it not to
those who would do the best job

> IETF and travel to IAOC meetings during the IETF should also be

I disagree - I do not think we should easily have people who do not
come to the IETF on the IAOC deciding what is good for the IETF

Scott

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:21:48 -0800

> IETF and travel to IAOC meetings during the IETF should also be

Jonne,

The argument you're making here is for a policy that IAOC members should
be responsible for their own expenses. That's a perfectly reasonable
policy, but the course of action you're arguing for is to write it
into the BCP so that it can't be changed without extraordinary
difficulty. Can you explain why you think that that's necessary?

-Ekr

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:51:47 -0500

The other Scott's approach looks like it's clearly the most reasonable, 
and follows a model we have used before.  No reimbursement for 
performance of services; no reimbursement for meetings that are 
associated with IETF; reimbursement for travel to special (not 
IETF-associated) meetings where necessary.  As usual, we have to be 
careful not to get too specific.  This might be just specific enough.

swb

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:42:14 -0500

>money support to still be able to be on the IAOC

The IESG also has meetings that are not scheduled in conjunction with 
IETF meetings (about two times per year, based on my short 
experience).  And, the IAB has workshops and other meetings that are 
not scheduled before, during or after IETF meetings.  Do you think 
that those expenses should also be reimbursed?

What about IETF attendance for an IAOC, IESG or IAB member who is not 
currently employed?

BTW, I am not worried about the ability to create a consistent travel 
policy.  ISOC already has a well-documented travel reimbursement 
policy.

Margaret

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:57:01 -0500 (EST)

please do not read more into what I said than I said - I *only* meant
what I said - nothing more (I have a hard time understanding how anyone
could have misread what I said)

I did not suggest any change to the non-reimbursment of IESG & IAB
expanses - nor did I intend to

I expect the job of being an IAOC member will take little time and
almost no travel (after maybe a startup phase) - someting that someone
who was willing to put non-day-job time in could do - thus I'd like the 
maximum flexability in being able to get the right people and if
that means paying expenses for one or two face to face meetings a year 
(if the IAOC feels that it must meet face to face other thna at
an IETF meeting) it seems like a small price to pay 

Scott

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:14:20 -0500

Sorry, Scott, I did not mean to imply that you had said anything more 
than you actually said.  I was simply asking whether you (or others) 
though that non-IETF travel for IESG and IAB members should also be 
reimbursed if it is not covered by an employer.

Personally, I don't understand why we would have a different 
reimbursement policy for IAOC members than for IESG and IAB members. 
The fact that an IAOC job may take less time than IESG or IAB 
participation does not seem, to me anyway, to be a reason why we 
should have a more generous reimbursement policy for the IAOC members.

Margaret

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 08:18:08 -0500 (EST)

> reimbursement policy for IAOC members than for IESG and IAB members. 

just being willing to pay travel expenses might make it possible for
someone to be able to do the IAOC job (since I think it can be done 
in non-day-job time) - that is not the case for IAB or IESG members

Scott

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:36:42 +0200

Scott,

> in non-day-job time) - that is not the case for IAB or IESG members

To be honest, I don't quite follow this logic. What would be the major
difference here on the reimbursement? 

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 08:44:36 -0500 (EST)

> difference here on the reimbursement? 

the key difference is if the job can be done while holding down a 
full time day-job (so the employer does not have to donate significant
time) - since an AD job is at least half time it can not be done 
without significant employer support (or by someone with their own
money) - if the IAOC job can be done on someone's own time then
they do not need employer support for their time and, if the expenses
for the few trips needed are covered, support for travel (outside of 
normal IETF travel)

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:39:04 -0500

--On Thursday, 30 December, 2004 11:21 -0800 EKR <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> I admit that I maybe have too much a view point of someone
>> working for a relatively large company. I try to approach
>> this from a position where the IAOC itself does not become a
>> significant cost for IASA.  
>> 
>> However, as these are the people that are responsible for
>> setting the budget and supervising the finances of the IASA
>> and there is no real owner to control the expenses it would
>> be clearer to have the IAOC members being responsible for
>> their own expenses.
>>...
> Jonne,
> 
> The argument you're making here is for a policy that IAOC
> members should be responsible for their own expenses. That's a
> perfectly reasonable policy, but the course of action you're
> arguing for is to write it into the BCP so that it can't be
> changed without extraordinary difficulty. Can you explain why
> you think that that's necessary?

EKR has now tried to make this point several times, and others
don't seem to be hearing him, so let me try and, in the process,
provide an additional data point.

I think it is key that this is a management decision, not
material for the BCP.  The right way to deal with this, IMO, is
the way we have (apparently) agreed to handle other details,
i.e., to have the BCP charge the IAOC with coming up with a
policy and making that policy known in the community.  Were that
policy to be, or become, abusive, then it needs to be fixed by
(or with) the IAOC.  But let's not lock a specific, perhaps
over-specific, policy into the BCP.

In case anyone doesn't know, IAB and IESG members, and probably
others, have occasionally been reimbursed for travel expenses to
meetings where they were representing the IETF and no other
source of funds was available.  If I recall, travel expenses to
IETF meetings have occasionally, although I think very rarely,
been reimbursed as well.  When it has been done, those expenses
have been covered out of IETF Chair discretionary funds provided
by ISOC.  The reimbursements have not been widely publicized, I
think, out of consideration for the privacy of the people
involved.  The new IASA disclosure rules would, I believe,
require at least an accounting of the total amounts of money
expended in this way.  But going further than that could, IMO,
hurt our ability to operate effectively, and to get the best
people to key meetings (rather than just the best-supported
people) and we should be careful to not shoot ourselves in the
foot in this area.

    john