Re: RFC Editor model

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

On 2019-07-03 21:51, Adam Roach wrote:
> Henrik --
> 
> Sorry for the delayed response here. I was on holiday through yesterday, 
> and am just now digging out from under the email backlog.

Ah.  Ok, understood.  Certainly you should be able to have a holiday :-)

> I want to be clear that I'm responding on behalf of myself, and not on 
> behalf of the RSOC as a whole.
> 
> Ted's email ("RSE bid Process") accurately captures the timeline: 
> Heather's resignation came after the RSOC's recommendation to the IAB, 
> but before the IAB deliberated on said recommendation.

Umm.  Yes, I saw that, but I actually asked if Heather's resignation came
in after _she_ was informed, or before.  I have no information telling me
at which point Heather was informed, relative to RSOC's recommendation to
the IAB; whether she was copied on that, informed before, or informed after.

It seems curious to me that it's so hard to get a clear answer to this point.

Sarah has been silent, Ted didn't mention it, and yet it seems to me that
it must be relevant how and when Heather was informed, even more than when
the IAB was informed of the recommendation.  I'm now at the point when I
am unwilling to back off from this question exactly because there seems to
be such a resistance to answer it clearly.

> I would take care with suppositions in this space ("possibly as a result 
> of..."). Without direct input from Heather, it's difficult to estimate 
> how much of a factor this recommendation may have played in her 
> decision. I also want to emphasize that the singular goal of the 
> recommendation was an attempt to de-risk the process of finding a 
> replacement for Heather in the eventuality that she were to step down, 
> which is why it was carefully couched in language that explained that 
> the recommendation was in no way a reflection of Heather's performance. 
> Clearly, things didn't play out the way we hoped, and the irony of the 
> actual outcome is not lost on me.

Understood.  And indeed.

> On a personal note, I do very much wish that Heather had chosen to stay 
> on as RSE. I'm currently having to deal with the dual hit of losing 
> Heather as the RSE as well as the weight of the community's reaction to 
> an outcome that I believe no one on the RSOC were steering towards, 
> including allegations that we have been less than straightforward in 
> explaining our motivations. So I apologize if this mail and others on 
> the topic seem a bit defensive.

Ok.  I understand.  And I feel like many others that this has gone very
wrong.  If I was on the RSOC, I think I would first clean house internally,
and then go cap in hand to Heather and ask her to bid in the upcoming RFP,
pretty please.  But the cleanup has to happen first, because I'm very
convinced that there are good reasons beyond just the message I asked
about above (even if I think it had a part) why Heather chose not to
renew.


Best regards,

	Henrik



> 
> /a
> 
> On 7/2/19 10:19 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> I posed a simple question to Sara earlier, one I'd really like to have
>> an answer to.  Your points about fabricated assumptions below brings
>> this to mind again, because fabricated assumptions are prone to appear
>> in the absence of fact.  So I'll ask you what I asked Sara, with added
>> emphasis:
>>
>> Did the RSE indicate that she did not intend to renew _before_ you informed
>> her that you were going to put the contract out for bid in 2021, or
>> _after_, (possibly as a result of you informing her about the early re-bid)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 	Henrik
>>
>>
>> On 2019-06-26 21:29, Adam Roach wrote:
>>> By way of disclosure, I'll be the first to point out that I'm on both
>>> the IESG and the RSOC, and so I'm going to have a certain perspective on
>>> the events underway. I hope that my statements below stand on their own,
>>> independently of whatever interests my position may imply.
>>>
>>> On 6/26/19 10:20 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>> I am claiming that some think that this situation has just occured, and it
>>>> resulted in the RSE deciding to do something else rather than attempt to
>>>> continue fighting against some bad thing happening.
>>>> (I am not saying that I even understand what the "thing" was, or agree that
>>>> it was "bad")
>>>
>>> You or anyone else for that matter. What happened is:
>>>
>>>   1. We, the community, liked Heather personally
>>>   2. Heather is leaving
>>>   3. So we're sad [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> You're kind of pointing sideways at some conspiracy theories that people
>>> have come up with to explain why #2 happened, but they're not really
>>> supported by facts in evidence. This is natural: because of #3, it's
>>> understandable to try to find someone to blame. But this is why you're
>>> having a hard time understanding what the "thing" is: it's whatever
>>> boogeyman the conspiracy theorists have chosen to invent for that
>>> moment. And so it's definitely "bad", but it isn't actually "real".
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that all of the critical posts on this topic are wrong.
>>> There are some valid points being made about the overall RFC Editor
>>> model, its history, and where its future may lie; and some of these are
>>> necessarily being couched as criticism.
>>>
>>> But there is also some poorly motivated rage being expressed based on
>>> wholly fabricated assumptions, much of which seems to be impervious to
>>> facts and unable to cite sources. Again, this is an understandable and
>>> natural reaction to being sad, although it is far from helpful. Even
>>> worse, it may harm our ability to find a suitable replacement for
>>> Heather: who wants to walk into a community full of rage?
>>>
>>> And so I strongly encourage you -- and others -- to be wary of arguments
>>> based on supposition. Share what you know and think, but please don't
>>> amplify untested theories.
>>>
>>> /a
>>>
>>> ____
>>> [1] I'm using "sad" here as a proxy for a complicated maelstrom of
>>> negative emotions that people seem to be undergoing at the moment.
>>> There's probably an entire doctoral thesis's worth of explanation that
>>> could be used to describe these emotions more accurately, but I don't
>>> have the tools to do so.
>>>
>>>
> 
>