Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

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 think we both have to drink.  ☕️☕️

--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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>