Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:55:02AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The amount of speculation going on here is impressive.

Yes. I feel like i am watching "Lost" or any other TV series based on
the premise that you keep the audience enticed by causing
speculations that never get resolved.

> FWIW, my main reaction to this is that I???m really sorry to hear that Heather is going. She???s been wonderful.

Yes, for me the RFC editor process has worked !!excellent!!, and it
seems thats also the comments from others on the list.

Then again, i wouldn't expect to learn about any actual issues
from public IETF mailing lists about any of the involved parties
RSOC, IAB, RSE and whoever else  is involved until much later
some strange new policy is published by someone more in the know
and all the IETF participants who are lost like me have to reverse
engineer why this new policy was proposed. IETF photography
policy comes to mind where i am still meeting at every IETF
people disagreeing on the actual causes why it came into place.

> 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.

Yes, speculation is is not helpfull. Transparency is. While there
may be questions obviously not to ask, there are a lot questions
where you may get a helpfull answer or you may have to
respect to not get an answer. These question should still be
fair to ask.

My question is simply whether there was anything negative
in the process that could be avoid in the future by better
policies and/or or execution. And if so, what.

> 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. 

Thank you, but i once fell into a cauldron of espresso in Milan,
so i am already hyperactive enough.

Cheers
    Toerless

> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Jun 19, 2019, at 11:47 AM, John C Klensin <[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]> 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 

-- 
---
[e-mail]