Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Fri, 28 June 2019 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA00120351 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hwv4fu_waajM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-07v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7602912000E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.226]) by resqmta-po-07v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id gumThkVT2OOQpgupMhUSzV; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:38:24 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1561743504; bh=84eJGfCmsq5apATVP5hsMbPLHsqp//TujK5tLncIlIg=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=masc+4C0nAHD8WtHnpX5z5+67gYqoS2YtsBK5txs9sa+Ol1WUkGGVyhlpIXMBFfqz anor9Bvsuc/hgSEe9FZfjKJwkRr43ixoV7fXcPaJf0H6ecYIYOoYEpyNAG4dF3Tk1x +uDBqJry/y+X43sRwuChMVI4Zu1I9zvkoCRX/v7ZeT9lL9U5KZf6bC3PrfU9ts5Zrb 5lfNyR6hABUzY022tnq4vOb9Xp2fNLkWqaaq6Ju7VsfzeeWDyBmSAsv5jInbomWojy l+XAmLqlRpRJzrksxPG1lUGLyQvxMLR/9VPWpZ+Kp9+imA8etEXmF/RNdT74t2jMYQ Lf/UcQt9udYDg==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:f0ca:f6cb:cbca:98d8] ([IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:f0ca:f6cb:cbca:98d8]) by resomta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id gupLhQOz5obG3gupMhnLTb; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:38:24 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0;st=legit
Subject: Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <685B34F6-E0E2-4050-B9DD-615F475F62B7@encrypted.net> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18D3A5CF@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <8CDEE96C-B1DA-4991-B8AA-A2455B705B77@mnt.se> <34F6E9B8-2BC2-46AC-8AF8-EFDA552D659D@tzi.org> <EA13A490-2636-459F-919B-8A72F4F45174@cable.comcast.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <df5a6b6c-d444-7e72-dd6c-e2fa844195fa@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 13:38:21 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EA13A490-2636-459F-919B-8A72F4F45174@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/JrqOrJJCQ8litWeVfF0e-IUZUG8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:38:27 -0000

On 6/28/2019 11:28 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> Usually a situation developed because some process was flawed or due to a lack alignment between responsibility & accountability, etc. This also means granting a bit of trust in colleagues and acknowledging that everyone is doing their best to achieve what they think will best serve the situation/platform/org/etc. This can be hard to do, but it is a healthy step that can make an org stronger.

Hi Jason -

The problem is that whatever trust I (we?) might want to grant in this 
case is diminished by past actions such as the rfcplusplus bof, and in 
the current instance, an explanation of behavior by the RSOC that 
doesn't meet the smell test.

This also begs the question of what were they actually trying to achieve 
and whether we the community believe those to be worthy goals.

A few of the other questions that should be asked in the post-mortem of 
this stupidity* is "Why did the RSOC find it necessary to take the 
actions it took without any community input whatsoever?" and "Did the 
IAB have any pre-knowledge of the actions that were about to be taken?"

Mike


* With respect to the term "stupidity", this was the least offensive 
term I was able to come up with that had the appropriate impact in the 
above statement. This is not an "unfortunate event" or a "well meaning 
action" or even a "mistake". "Stupidity" at least leaves the question of 
malign intent open.    Feel free to come up with your own terms.