Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

I'm going to top post because replying to this line by line isn't really 
the best way to dispose of this part of the thread.  And as someone 
noted, if I remained silent it might be taken as implicit approval of 
what I consider a unsupportable take on "stupidity" as described below.

As other's have noted, its possible for smart people to do stupid 
things.  It's even possible to get a stupid result (or " this 
stupidity") with many smart people doing perfectly reasonable things.  
Note that I'm not claiming this is the current case.

In the instant case, this was a stupidity because it was a _completely 
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
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.

To finish up - I appreciate that the Sargent at Arms has to walk a fine 
line here, but I don't think this is even close.  Again, I'd appreciate 
it if in the future we follow the general contract and first have 
private conversations.   You'll  have plenty of time afterward to make 
your explicit disapproval clear if necessary.

Also I'd really appreciate it if you don't attribute a particular 
emotion to my persistence with this set of discussions - it's yet 
another form of demeaning behavior. You attributed "frustration", and 
another I* attributed "upset" to me.  What I actually am is "sad" at the 
state of affairs and "disappointed" in the various folk that caused this 
stupidity to occur somewhat including myself.  Feel free to use either 
of those words in future correspondence.



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.

On 6/28/2019 7:22 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:58:52PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> On 6/28/2019 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> I appreciate that you have put thought into your phrasing.  However, this
>>> term nonetheless fails to meet the bar for professional conduct required
>>> by RFC 3005.  We must treat each other with courtesy, even when we find
>>> events to be disconcerting.  Making observations about the situation is
>>> reasonable; attacking community members is out of bounds.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ben
>>> for the Sergeant-at-Arms
>> With respect  - no.   Please read above more closely.   The situation is
>> stupid.  "post-mortem of this stupidity".  If you choose to attribute
>> stupidity to a community member so be it.
> With respect, I have a hard time seeing how there can be stupidity without
> some*one* being stupid -- inanimate objects don't have motive or
> intelligence.  Especially so when seen alongside talk of "intent", which to
> me at least seems clearly tied to one or more individuals' actions.
> Feel free to tell me more about how I'm wrong (but that's probably better
> off-list -- I don't anticipate an IETF working group that handles the
> subtleties of the English language).
>
>> In any event, the general model is to first have a private discussion
>> with the prospective offendee describing what you found offensive and
>> why before public sanction.  Please try and do all of us that courtesy
>> the next time.
> That is the general model, yes, and one that is followed most of the time.
> There is a countervailing force, though, in the form of the risk that
> observers will see silence as tacit approval.  As Sergeant-at-Arms, I'm
> tasked with keeping the discussion forum a professional environment for all
> participants, and sometimes that involves sending a public signal about
> what behavior is expected.
> I sympathsize with your frustration and I want the same answers that you
> do, but this is a hard conversation for the community to be having, and
> adding into the mix remarks that come off as personal attacks will just
> make it harder.
>
> -Ben