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 <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
