Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

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

Keith,

One observation:  "replace Jon Postel" has never been a
realistic goal.  Jon, in combination with Joyce Reynolds (and
I'm very concerned about what it might mean that we keep
forgetting her and her role) were carrying out the role of the
current RSE and ISE (and, for a long time, doing most of the
editing).  However, they were also exercising a strong technical
role, including applying a check on the technical quality,
sensibility, and even sanity of what was submitted  to them.  In
the reorganized model, we have split the RSE and ISE roles out
and have dropped that technical sanity check role for the RFC
Editor function (outside the Independent Stream) entirely,
trusting the Streams to get their own documents right.   Those
decisions were very explicit and the knowledge that we weren't
going to find another Jon Postel was a large part of the reason
for the redesign of what we now call the RFE Editor model.

Heather has been a demonstration of the above.  She has, in my
opinion (and apparently that of others) done a superb job.  She
has even done some things that the community thinks are
important that I don't believe Jon would have spent time on.
But she is no Jon Postel and has, as far as I know, shown no
signs of thinking that she is.  

Indeed, I would consider anyone who believed they could run the
Series the way Jon did, applying all of the skills and authority
that he had, to be too self-deluded to be an appropriate
candidate for the job.

   best,
     john


--On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:05 -0400 Keith Moore
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 7/22/19 8:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> The RFC Series Editor has always been treated as a senior
>> colleague, and part of our community leadership; never as a
>> hired hand, because it isn't the sort of job that can easily
>> be measured or priced. Obviously, as a practical matter, the
>> RSE has to be paid for their time and expenses, but it really
>> doesn't matter whether that's as an employee, an individual
>> contractor, or via their existing employer. That's basically
>> a clerical matter, once the right person has been identified.
>> 
>> I now think that the notion of a pre-defined statement of
>> work and a competitive bidding process is*completely*
>> inappropriate. What we should do, IMHO, is identify the right
>> person by a search process with a well-informed search
>> committee, and then leave IETF LLC to figure out any
>> necessary employment or contractual details later.
>> 
>> Obviously there will be a finite budget limit that the search
>> committee will bear in mind. But we aren't trying to find the
>> cheapest RSE; we're trying to find the best one.
> 
> Either that, or we need to completely rethink the role of RSE.
> 
> IMO, we keep trying to replace Jon Postel, who was a very
> unique individual who grew into that role at a unique time.
> 
> I certainly agree with Brian (and also John) /if/ we persist
> in thinking of the RSE as a senior (and wise) colleague who
> can be trusted to act in the best interests of the Internet
> and IETF (in that order).    (note that I don't mention
> governments or corporations or even other standards-making
> bodies as having legitimate interests here.)
> 
> But maybe that's not the best idea, maybe such people are
> extremely scarce by now, and maybe they'll be nonexistent in
> the future.   And if we can't count on having suitable
> candidates in the future, then it seems likely that the role
> should be redefined, less independent, and subject to closer
> oversight.
> 
> choose carefully!
> 
> Keith
> 
>