RSE Bid Process

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 6927D12064F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kWzizVJhIvHx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2172D1206AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id k20so7338788ios.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 12:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=By75pvvXZBDnFFbAJEGYxHpDyZo1TUxqL9gjzA1pw/E=; b=Vouoo6bgHvGnwPLYeD97fHC3osZjKxhmHuxj4Scr6HyQfS+wYGsZzlEctiVvHJipzc n1OR7Upn2tffOhZ6mi5dQGptaqJAVtCsE5/uM9j1LcDIS7g58ihV7tKQ50X4FSCbruDp JUWOnb+jR9cIWOUc6Hez8tSOKT8Neu+sHQdOeQnJlQWf8RGwqUeZBLjccTYhvnX9bXBv X9582beM4fEj/JiksIakQ9LoJnBnJ+Kos4IeIDw5i+xqpevhQtYidxvG/aAnKi9vySRW ICkfrodwtBLduq8DVBiip2M8U/ywx/gSmHSEgRy6HN7ABg17uUL0GN0mrFVNk954OAU7 Xo2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=By75pvvXZBDnFFbAJEGYxHpDyZo1TUxqL9gjzA1pw/E=; b=cMK+HJZcBD7cEPEDM/aOZehGqJ3vw/rippcJBNxWJBCitthEyj0jw50hPbzy4y25gw nY3TX+4FMVOM0s8PmFm1+Q0TP1SWaWqRMhpFmfBUQwMAESIcZ3wShmhtwTv1qyvIFv4X owpHDjS04yymW2OqBoYJWVogisANTmhmggf/4qmEromZkCjA7nNkPnhGRvDKqgZaOv1F LfrJTKaXPRo12KwwmgT6R8PGFaMN+wcoZs/PGM9C4yKg/fwM78f7YEJ6hLc3AYYVD3zx K6qsO4GmAXNU29uQGXVyODe+YUKtVVBcO1QTnPLjkTkxodZwSOWKMVPeQznicu2DE+vD VDfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWumDwpEgA1UiDPgLuvtE4SfzeKXyH4JCfzXWt5XDj1TfKgcZ4T ucU7ahb3St8byqGPsXoO6ptGc7P4coLdbwZN0ZPty3Ml
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwwQDdkKmTshMqbAV62Rv6N2+keccxmL8W5cUdj4BWuuiy0PYV/c2i+WEKUq9u5Ey+9PNG32x2hzA7chhZoj/w=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:c519:: with SMTP id s25mr42440441jam.11.1562180601018; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 12:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:02:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMALnyeoMJKOgwZ8QP1G+aeSTSBbu4HXAAxdyhcC0K=mDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RSE Bid Process
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, rsoc@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc81b4058ccb838d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_Le5BN-GsJA-424DHbcFupgZHAA>
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 19:03:33 -0000

As folks are aware, there is ongoing discussion on Heather’s decision not
to continue as RFC Series Editor (RSE) and about how the situation has been
handled. Firstly, we’d like to express our regret at how things have
transpired and our willingness to have an open discussion with the
community about where we can all best go from here. This mail sets out our
view of how recent events unfolded, and our understanding of the process
for finding the next RSE.


The RSE currently has a two year contract which began in 2018 and which
permitted two extensions of up to two years each.  As part of their duties
under RFC 6635, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) reviewed the
contract in May of this year.  On June 6th, they notified Heather Flanagan,
the current RSE, that they would recommend the contract be extended for two
years.  At the same time, they noted an intent to prepare a Request for
Proposals during that two year period, in order to address some concerns
that were raised about response rates after the last bid process.
Immediately afterwards, the RSOC notified the IAB both of their
recommendation to renew the contract in 2020 and their intent to prepare an
RFP for 2022.

Initial discussions within the IAB would normally have been held at the
following IAB meeting, on June 10th.   On June 7th, however, the RSE
notified the IAB, the IETF LLC Board, and RSOC that she did not intend to
renew the contract.  The IAB is grateful that she provided early notice and
that she has agreed during the remaining months of the existing contract to
help the RSOC and IETF community to consider the requirements needed for
the next RFC Series Editor.

Discussions on the requirements are ongoing on the IETF list.  While we
expect additional community discussions of future processes or models, we
also want to take advantage of the time Heather’s courtesy provided as best
we can.  As a result, we believe we should begin the RFP process as set out
in RFC 6635 now, with an aim to getting an RSE and a contract in place with
sufficient transition time.  Since the last running of this process, the
IAOC has concluded and the IETF LLC taken shape, so we wanted to lay out to
the community our understanding of that process with the IETF LLC in
place.  As with other aspects of the IAOC to LLC transition, the RSOC and
IAB will aim for minimal change to the current process, and zero unexpected
changes. That would give the following steps:

1) The RSOC prepares a statement of work based on RFC 6635 and previous RFPs
<https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RSE-RFP-4August2017.pdf>.

2) The RSOC sends the SOW out for public comment.

If IAB members, the IAB, or the IETF LLC board have comments, they occur
during this period.  There is no separate review for them.

3) After the RSOC finalizes the SOW, it notifies the IAB, which requests
the IETF LLC issue an RFP.

Note: this is not an approval step, just the mechanics of who has the token
to turn this crank.

4) The RFP is issued by the IETF LLC.

5) The RSOC, or a committee formed from within the RSOC, reviews the
proposals and interviews candidates.  Depending on the number of candidates
this could involve steps for creating a short list before running
interviews.

6) The RSOC recommends an appointment to the IAB.

7) The IAB approves the appointment, subject to contracting.

8) The IETF LLC negotiates a contract with the appointed RSE.

9) After timing is agreed, the new RSE is announced and a transition
begins.

Once again, we regret how things have transpired and will be engaging with
the community on the longer term handling of how the IAB, RSE and IETF
relate to one another. That may include a new version of RFC 6635.  Until
those conclude, however, we believe we need to move forward with the
current process. As part of that, we want to confirm with the community our
understanding of the process required under the existing model and
procedures.

If you have comments on this point, please send them by replying to this
mail or to iab@iab.org and rsoc@iab.org.  Note that both lists include the
current RSE as a member.  If you have comments on the SOW, e.g., on
appropriate length or renewal intervals, please send them to RSOC after the
SOW has been published for community review. For comments on the broader
situation, the ietf@ietf.org list is, as always, available.

Regards,

Ted Hardie

for the IAB