|
On 6/19/2019 12:27 PM, Richard Barnes
wrote:
Preparing for a re-bid after the first extension doesn't
necessarily mean that the second extension won't be
exercised. Plans are just plans and circumstances could
change.
I don't think that passes the smell test.
Announcing a plan to re-bid at least 18 months and maybe more
like 24 months ahead of a re-bid beginning suggests to me that the
exercise of the second extension would only happen if the re-bid
didn't result in viable offers - including any other offers from
the incumbent possibly bidding against themselves.
I think we both have to drink. ☕️☕️
No - I don't think so. While its possible a later IAB or RSOC
could change the conditions, I think what I said is a good
representation of current reality.
Later, Mike
--Richard
Tell me if I have to
drink. The current contract was for 2 years with the
possibility of 2 2year extensions for a possible total of 6
years. The contract started 1 Jan 2018 making the initial
end date 31 Dec 2019. From what Sarah’s note said, the IAB
and RSOC decided to exercise the first extension option
which if accepted would place the contract end at 31 Dec
2021 (2.5 years from now). The IAB RSOC at the same time is
indicated that they would never exercise the second
extension, instead indicating they would put the RSE back
out for a new contract with an award date by 1Jan 2022.
Did I miss anything or does Sarah’s note allow for a
different set of conclusions?
Mike
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 19, 2019, at 11:55, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The amount of speculation going on here is impressive.
FWIW, my main reaction to this is that I’m really sorry to
hear that Heather is going. She’s been wonderful.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 19, 2019, at 11:47 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> 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
>> <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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
