Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

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.

>
> I think we both have to drink.  ☕️☕️

No - I don't think so.  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] 
> <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>