Hi Ted,
Pardon the top post…
If I read you correctly, you are saying that the communication from the RSOC to Heather was simply a statement of what they planned to recommend to the IAB, and not a statement of the process that had been agreed and was being executed.
Right?
Adrian
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: 24 June 2019 17:14
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IAB IAB <iab@xxxxxxx>; IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IAB] The RSE's perspective
Hi Aaron,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:45 PM Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You've made some meta-points above, which I will respond to in a different message, as I think they are on the topic of "what do we do in the future" and need to be called out as such.
- 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?
I believe Sarah's note covers the question of why the RFP process was a focus. On the other question, I must remind you that this position is both a community leadership position and a contractor position. We see the first when Heather sits on stage with the rest of the leadership at plenaries, to take comments from the community. The latter, however, is covered by the normal confidentiality given to personnel matters.. That confidentiality is important to maintain even when the comments given would be laudatory, as that principle ensures that you don't get revelation by omission at later dates. The public statements in cases like this are the outcomes, just as they would be in a company's hiring or promotion decisions..
In this particular case, the full process did not run, as it goes RSOC recommends to the IAB, the IAB makes a decision, and the contract is executed by the LLC. There is no outcome to point to, in other words, since Heather's decision took place before it finished.
What I can say is that the IAB received the RSOC recommendation and that the IAB minutes will show what that was. The minutes will not receive final approval until Wednesday's meeting, but I will share with you what the draft says:
12. Executive Session: RFC Series Editor Contract
The IAB received the following recommendation from RSOC on 2019-06-06:
"The RSOC has reached the decision to recommend that we reup the
current RSE contract this year. We continue to be concerned with our
last bid outcome, where there was a single applicant, and we wonder
if changing or amending steps in the process (like where we bid, how
long it’s out for bid, etc) would increase the number of
respondents. We recognize that with 2020 coming closer, the ability
to rebid in the short term would be too narrow. Our full
recommendation is to reup at the end of this year, and then go out
to bid in 2021 for the 2022 timeframe. The decision to rebid is
explicitly not a comment on Heathers performance as RSE, but rather,
our desire to collect more data and refine the process."
Heather Flanagan subsequently announced that she did not intend to renew her
contract as RSE on 2019-06-07.
The IAB discussed the RFC Series Editor contract in an executive
session.
I call your attention to the final line of the recommendation, which confirms what Sarah already said. Much more on the personnel side I do not expect the RSOC or IAB to say, given the usual confidentiality requirements around personnel decisions. As I noted above, those requirements apply even if the comments are positive.
- 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.
If you consult RFC 6635, Section 4, you'll see that this interaction is primarily between the RSE and the IAOC; in 6635bis this is updated to the LLC. The institutional memory here is lodged elsewhere.
- 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 NomComappointment cycle [RFC3777] and assure that oversight includessuitable subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a groupthat implements oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series OversightCommittee (RSOC).
The IAB did not so much remove half the RSOC as refresh the whole membership. See the call for for volunteers from May of last year: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/-9XsyFQsp-4fybaKssEttVINCQE. As the call for volunteers notes, the current process doesn't give RSOC members specific terms. Rather than select specific members and remove them, the IAB chose to consider the whole membership and invite existing members to stand again if they chose. As is usual for IAB appointments of this type, there was then a period where confidential comments on the volunteers was received, followed by interviews and a selection.
- Will the IAB commit to report to the community what it concludes went wrong and what should be done to prevent similar unfortunate outcomes?
The IAB takes its responsibilities under RFC 6635 very seriously and will do what it can to improve the process. That may, of course, require considering changes to RFC 6635; that is the topic of the "meta message response" you'll see in a bit.
Ted Hardie
