Re: [Rfced-future] Proposal for RSCE recruitment committee and process

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:43 +1300 Jay Daley
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> An update on this.
> 
>> On 1/02/2022, at 2:50 PM, Jay Daley <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> In line with Peter's proposed text [1], here is my proposal
>> for the RSCE selection committee and recruitment process,
>> which I would like community feedback on.  I realise that
>> things have not been fully settled but this recruitment is
>> going to take some time and the sooner we can start the
>> better.  If this is too soon then please let me know.
>> 
>> # Rationale
>> 
>> 1.  The RSCE role is very different from the previous RSE
>> role and for the recruitment to be a success it is critical
>> that the committee recruits to the new RSCE role as defined.
>> It would be problematic if anyone on the committee was not
>> clear about the new role and was inadvertently targeting the
>> old role.  The committee members therefore need detailed
>> knowledge of the new role, in all its subtleties.

>> 2.  The committee needs detailed knowledge of the working
>> environment in which the new RSCE will operate in order to
>> assess fit and answer questions.  This environment includes
>> the RPC, IETF community, IETF community leadership and
>> non-IETF RFC community (as such as it exists and we have
>> knowledge of it).

>>...

Jay,

With the understanding that I'm fine with the people listed, I
have a small issue with a role that might be missing, one that
interacts with the characterization above.   Whether
intentionally or not, there has seemed to be an assumption that
(to exaggerate a bit for emphasis) anyone who participated in
previous selection processes for the RSE and/or definitions of
that role are somehow so irreversibly contaminated or seriously
brain-damaged by those involvements to be stuck on trying to
resurrect that old role (or, as you put it, targeting that
role).  With the understanding that I am _not_ looking for an
appointment with the committee, several of those who were
involved in those previous selections have been very active in
the Program effort, including contributing to the definition of
the new role. 

None of that would make much difference were it not for one
other aspect of the issue.  The qualifications you list are
primarily knowledge of the working environment (presumably past
and present since no one has experience with the actual
operation of the new model), contracting and (general)
recruitment expertise, and the details of the new model.  All
that is fine and, if I were making a list, those things would be
on it.  However, what is missing is in-depth understanding of
the more fundamental and philosophical decisions about how RFCs
are structured and published.  At least as I understand it, it
was never an agreed goal of this program to fundamentally change
those things, only to significantly change the organizational
and decision-making structure that supports and drives the
Series.  Sandy knows much of that from observation and
participation in more recent versions of that history.  But,
perhaps by a side effect of what appears to be assuming that
irreversible contamination, you have no one one your list who
knows that history.  Not only is there no one who was involved
in the prior RSE (or earlier) selection processes, but AFAICT,
there is no one who was on the RSOC before the meltdown(s)
started, no one who has been on the RSE's advisory (as distinct
from "oversight") body or its predecessors, and no one who has
served on the ISE's editorial board.

Eliminating those people may also reduce the committee's
knowledge of the "non-IETF RFC community".   In particular, it
also appears that, when you mention contracting, you are focused
on options available to the IETF LLC and not the rather
different sets of issues faced by people who use RFCs as part of
their procurement processes.   Those who use the RFCs in
procurement may not be a "community" in any real sense, but they
are vitally important to the relevancy of the RFC Series and,
indeed, the IETF.

It might even be worth mentioning that at least one of the
people who was interviewed during the cycle in which Heather was
selected would have been much more qualified for the current
definition of the RSCE role than they were for the RSE one --
the latter was seen as having some requirements that the
candidate didn't satisfy but that are now largely or completely
irrelevant.  Certainly the roles are very different, but that
does not make the candidate pools disjoint.

In addition, our definition of "detailed" may differ but I don't
think there is _anyone_ who has "detailed knowledge of the new
role, in all its subtleties".   Substitute "opinions" for
"knowledge" and I'd agree, but it is knowledge that you asked
for and that, IMO, is needed.  From observation of the
discussion on this list, I believe that some people expect the
RSCE to be someone who brings some expertise to the table but
whose role is largely passive, more or less speaking only when
spoken to.  Others see the need for a more active role including
noticing current or potential problems and bringing them to the
attention of the RSWG, RSAB, or other actors as appropriate and
before they evolve into crises.  I think the community would be
better served by having both perspectives on the role (and/or
perspectives in between) represented on the committee rather
than having only one perspective because of the choices of
committee members (maybe both perspectives are adequately
represented on your list but it is not obvious and does not
appear in the criteria you list).   The current version of the
document does say (Section 5, second bullet) "Identify problems
with the RFC publication process..." which moves things a bit in
the second direction.  It does not say, for example, "Identify
and alert people to potential future problems facing the Series"
but that is not excluded either: the text only talks about
"primary responsibilities" and, further on, "might provide
guidance [that] could include...".  I don't recall any consensus
that would eliminate the possibility of the RSCE taking a
longer-term view or offering advice proactively; only the
possibilities of the RSCE having any individual authority or
making unilateral decisions is excluded.  

I think the text is ok and that the RSAB and RSWG will have to
do a certain amount of sorting out of roles (the RSCE one and
many others) as experience with the new model accumulates.  But
it seems to me that it could be important to have one or more
people on the selection committee with that longer-term
perspective on Series philosophy so that candidates who would be
good at the more proactive role are not systematically excluded.
FWIW, that difference in skills should be reflected in the
instructions given the recruiters.
 
A different way to read some of your comments and criteria --and
we have talked about this before-- is they can be interpreted as
looking for a committee with completely shared views about roles
and responsibilities.  That would certainly make things easier.
It would also not be representative of the community (or even
the consensus of this Program) with regard to questions about
the details of roles.  Fortunately from my point of view, the
committee members you listed are not going to give you that
level of homogeneity.  I'm suggesting that, because the
advantages of complete homogeneity have been abandoned, it would
be an advantage to broaden things even a bit further and that it
would have no downside ... again unless there is consensus about
the brain-damage hypothesis about people with prior experience
with the selection process and/or long-term series strategy.
 
>...

   best,
      john