I think it is not controversial to say this is a bad outcome. Heather leaving as RSE because she felt she didn’t have the authority or autonomy to perform the job is not good for the RFC Series or the IETF. It also will make it harder to recruit a high quality replacement.
I think it’s worth trying to understand what went wrong so, as a community, we can consider whether changes should are made to address any underlying problems. While the RSOC has provided a statement, I think the IAB also needs to be accountable per RFC6635
The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series...
So, I have a few questions for the RSOC and IAB:
Was either the RSOC or the IAB ‘unhappy’ with the RSE? Or believe the community is unhappy with the RSE? If so, for what reason? If not, why the interest in finding additional bidders?
The concerns about performance against the SLA seem related to the RSOC forgetting earlier warnings by the RSE that production rates would slip during migration to the new format. So, why did the IAB remove half of the RSOC in 2018 (including those members who were part of the search process for the current RSE)? After all, RFC 6635 states a purpose of the RSOC is to provide institutional knowledge:
In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the NomCom
appointment cycle [RFC3777] and assure that oversight includes
suitable subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group
that implements oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight
Committee (RSOC).
- Will the IAB commit to report to the community what it concludes went wrong and what should be done to prevent similar unfortunate outcomes?
--aaron
On 20 Jun 2019, at 8:39, Heather Flanagan wrote:
Hola a todos!As with all endings, every side of the story has their own perceptions of what’s happened. I want to share my thinking and perceptions behind my decision not to renew my contract as RSE at the end of this year.My view for the RFC Series is one that supports making available high-quality technical documents by and for the Internet, from a variety of sources. My view for the RFC Editor is one that supports a technology-neutral but highly skilled partner in the process. The RFC Series Editor represents those views in an equal role to the various stream managers. The IETF is the RFC Editor’s biggest client, so the collaboration between the organizations is critical. But it needs to *be* a collaboration, where both sides respect the skills and knowledge of the other. It is not a subordinate relationship, where the RFC Editor is simply a group offering services are useful but not truly critical. It is also not a relationship where the strategy and decisions for the Series itself are dictated by IETF leadership.Over the last year, I’ve seen the rfcplusplus BoF happen, against my recommendation. My oversight committee, which is a group that I must work with most closely, was almost completely replaced without any input from me. I have what essentially acts as a design team, the RFC Series Advisory Group. They generally aren’t consulted either. The RSOC/IAB is pushing hard on the missed SLA, not acknowledging that statements were made (with full support and understanding of earlier leadership cohorts) on plenary stage and in meetings that the SLA would be missed as the format tool testing and transition ramped up. And then I see the new RSOC completely ignore the learnings of the first and second RFPs for the RSE role, and make recommendations again without input from people who have experience with the process. With all that said, RSOC/IAB have done nothing that they aren’t allowed to do in their various charters. But if that’s the way the organization is going to be run, I don’t feel like I’m at all a good fit for how business is handled. I would rather find other ways I can be effective in helping to do my part in improving the Internet.My interpretation of events of the last year as described above, culminating with the decision to put the RSE contract out to bid at year four instead of year six, is that my view for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor are not aligned with the expectations of the IETF leadership. At the end of the day, I am a contractor, and what I see here is a relationship with a client that is unhappy with my performance, but they can’t or won’t tell me why. Rather than drag this out, I think it’s best to let the client go, and the communities that depend on the RFC Series can decide what it is they really want in an RFC Series Editor.I will do what I can, within reason, to ensure a smooth transition to a new RSE. And I will be in Montreal and Singapore, where I hope to tell many of you in person just how much I’ve enjoyed working with you over the last seven years. Thank you for the well wishes, and best of fortunes into the next stage of evolution for the IETF and the RFC Editor!Thank you for all the many fine lunches and dinners,Heather
