Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 6/19/2019 12:27 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> Preparing for a re-bid after the first extension doesn't necessarily mean
> that the second extension won't be exercised.  Plans are just plans and
> circumstances could change.
>
> I don't think that passes the smell test.
>
> Announcing a plan to re-bid at least 18 months and maybe more like 24
> months ahead of a re-bid beginning suggests to me that the exercise of the
> second extension would only happen if the re-bid didn't result in viable
> offers - including any other offers from the incumbent possibly bidding
> against themselves.
>
Lot of assumptions in here.  "Suggests to me" doesn't mean "necessarily
follows".


>
> I think we both have to drink.  ☕️☕️
>
> No - I don't think so.
>
> "Every time you post you have to drink a shot. "

☕️🐝

--RLB

While its possible a later IAB or RSOC could change the conditions, I think
> what I said is a good representation of current reality.
>
> Later, Mike
>
>
>
> --Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:19 AM Mike StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Tell me if I have to drink.  The current contract was for 2 years with
>> the possibility of 2 2year extensions for a possible total of 6 years.  The
>> contract started 1 Jan 2018 making the initial end date 31 Dec 2019.   From
>> what Sarah’s note said, the IAB and RSOC decided to exercise the first
>> extension option which if accepted would place the contract end at 31 Dec
>> 2021 (2.5 years from now).  The IAB RSOC at the same time is indicated that
>> they would never exercise the second extension, instead indicating they
>> would put the RSE back out for a new contract with an award date by 1Jan
>> 2022.
>>
>> Did I miss anything or does Sarah’s note allow for a different set of
>> conclusions?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > On Jun 19, 2019, at 11:55, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > The amount of speculation going on here is impressive. FWIW, my main
>> reaction to this is that I’m really sorry to hear that Heather is going.
>> She’s been wonderful.
>> >
>> > I don’t know if there is any debugging required here, but I do know
>> that no part of the debugging process can happen on this mailing list. I
>> won’t ask you to stop, because you won’t.
>> >
>> > So perhaps we can have a drinking game. One shot of espresso every time
>> someone speculates wildly. Two shots every time someone gets the length of
>> the term wrong. Every time you post you have to drink a shot.
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> >> On Jun 19, 2019, at 11:47 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>