Re: The RSE's perspective

[Alexander Neilson <alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Heather

I wanted to say directly and publicly to you I hope my comments were not seen in any way as negative on your performance. I haven’t been involved in the IETF extensively enough to have any actual knowledge on this and was trying to simply talk about partners being clear in a contractual discussion and telling the partner in that relationship before publicly announcing something that will have an effect on the future operation of that relationship. 

The feedback from members of the community I hold respect for have commented positively about your work (the only perspective I have knowledge of) and thank you very much for your work on the RFC’s. I often pop into them to check details and they are one of the best access systems to technical documentation I have worked with and I appreciate the series and the work that goes into them. Thank you. 

It sounds like the details of this particular interaction (as opposed to my objective technical view) has been, at least, sub optimal and has significantly damaged what was a great relationship. I hope very big learnings are taken from this to ensure the mistakes made are not repeated. 

Specifically it seems that:

* if you make a change knowingly will affect the delivery SLA that SLA should be officially changed or officially suspended

* institutional knowledge is very important to effective operation and committees constituted to provide longer term oversight should be managed and discussed with members / overlap to ensure that knowledge is retained across the group

* just telling someone what you are planning to do without a detailed why undermines trust in the relationship, especially if a move can have a significant negative interpretation or is a significant departure from the historical approach 

Regards

Alexander

Alexander Neilson

Neilson Productions Limited

021 329 681

alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 21/06/2019, at 00:39, Heather Flanagan <rse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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