Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

[with no hats]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:23:22PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> foreseeable result_ that was _completely avoidable_, but the result had 
> many many parents:
> 
> 1) The community for not more carefully constraining the IAB's assertion 
> of authority over the RFC process.
> 2) The IAB for delegation of said authority to the RSOC without 
> carefully constraining its exercise.
> 3) The IAB for not paying attention to the result of the RFC++ bof

I think you should say more about why you think the *IAB* did not pay
attention to the result of the RFC++ BoF.  Note that, as far as I can
recover the timeline of events here, the actions of the RSOC were the
triggering event.  Is there perhaps supposed to be some connection between
the BoF and the RSOC appointments of (4)?

> 4) The IAB for replacing the majority of the RSOC post the RFC++ bof 
> without input from the RSE, and in apparent violation of one of the 
> guiding principles of the RSOC - that of maintaining continuity from 
> year to year.
> 5) The community for not yelling a lot louder and longer when (4) happened.
> 6) The community, IAB and RSOC for not appreciating the value of a world 
> class professional editor/publisher to the continued excellence of the 
> RFC series, and for not expressing that appreciation in the form of 
> professional deference and independence rather than what appears to have 
> been more of a "you contractor, me boss"* model.
> 7) The RSOC for ... well - you know.
> 8) The LLC for not paying better attention to the relationship between 
> contractor and contractee.
> 
> I'm sure there are others.

Me, too, but that's a great start.

> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> *About a year ago, shortly after the RFC++ bof, I had a conversation 
> with one of the I* who I will not name about the disconnect between what 
> I though the RFC editor job was and what I was seeing the I* push.  The 
> phrase "she's just a contractor" is a direct quote from that conversation.

Wow, that seems pretty concerning, though I don't know if it would have (to
me) without the benefit of hindsight.

-Ben
(still no hats)