Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Stewart,

I disagree, but only partially.   I think there are actually at
least three or four separate questions involved with this.  One
is a strategy question or set of them having to do with how the
RFC Editor Function is managed and overseen.  Questions of
contract lengths, who has responsibility for what, and even the
question the Mike St Johns raised about whether, with the IASA
and then IASA2 transitions and other changes, the IAB's having
exclusive control is still right for the community are all part
of that.  So are other questions, e.g., whether,  there should
be people on the RSOC who are selected by the Nomcom for those
roles or appointed by other community bodies.   Those are issues
that affect the whole community (including many
none-participants in the IETF) and should be about to be
discussed broadly.   If a public discussion of them is not
possible, I think we are in very big trouble indeed.

Second, there are questions surrounding whether some of the
decisions that seem to have been made here --notably taking an
action that would have a high likelihood of constraining options
2.5 years out--  represent good business and/or management
practices.  With one exception that I trust is not the case and
that would raise other issues, I cannot imagine why the
community should not be able to discuss whether or not the
process of overseeing the RSE (and the RFC Editor Function
generally) is applying good practices.   If Heather was not
consulted (I don't think we know whether she was or not and she
is certainly not the person who should be obligated to tell us)
before the decision was made about the tradeoffs involved, how
difficult she thought it would be a find a replacement, etc.,
that is, to me, another management process issue for which there
should be some accountability. (I know such a conversation might
have been awkward but, noting that the nomcom handles equally
awkward conversations every year, if we cannot have expectations
about Heather's professionalism and that of the RSOC that are at
least that high, we are in big trobule.) If none of that can
discussed in public, then, AFAICT, we are essentially deciding
that the RSOC (or the RSOC and the IAB together) are not
accountable to the community around issues that clearly involve
management decisions and not just handing out architectural
advice.

Third, there is the question of Heather's performance. Taking an
action that, at least IMO, would have a high likelihood of
resulting in her saying "I don't need any more of this" (even
from someone of Heather's normal cheery temperament, especially
as compared to the hotheads among us) and doing so without
community input, even if that input had been requested to be
sent to the RSOC rather than this list, seems inappropriate ...
or is part of the management and accountability issues mentioned
above.

None of the above interacts with the details of particular
contracts with individuals, cost negotiations, etc., which
should clearly not be on this list.

best,
  john


--On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 15:26 +0100 Stewart Bryant
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I really do not think that this is a discussion that should
> take place in a public forum like this.
> 
> There is much that both parties may legitimately wish to keep
> private in situations such as this.