RE: RFC Series Editor Resignation

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

It may be cultural, but I find this “every time you post you have to drink a shot” to be inappropriate suppression of discussion. It does not add to the debate in anyway, but serves to shut down participation in the topic. 

 

I should be grateful if we were able to discuss what is clearly an emotionally charged topic focusing on the issues and concerns without resorting to this sort of rhetorical technique.

 

Thanks,

Adrian

 

From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
Sent: 19 June 2019 19:49
To: Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
Cc: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>; IETF Discussion <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

 

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