It's clear from Heather's message and the community discussion that there remain some tensions among the various ways the RSE position fits into the leadership. The current RFC Editor model is an evolution from the one which grew up under Jon, Joyce, and Bob's terms, and it reflects both the need to have a strategic leader and the need to have a vehicle for both employment and oversight. The current model has a lot of moving parts, some of which must treat the RSE in different lights. Some aspects of the tensions that can create are brought to light most clearly when circumstances require us to consider a change.
Among those is a tension between the way the RSE is responsible to the community as a community leader and as a paid member of the executive staff. In the first, we expect the RSE to respond to community input directly, whether on mailing lists or on a plenary stage. In the second, the details of the contract (including terms, renewals, and pay) are arranged between an RSE and the IASA (now the IETF LLC), but overseen by the RSOC, whose recommendations go to the IAB for final decisions at certain key points (e.g. appointment and renewal).
As an individual RSE grows in the role of community leader and is accepted by the community on that basis, the tension between standard oversight of a contract and the leadership position may get worse, as specific actions may seem like challenges to the leadership of the incumbent rather than the administration of a contract.
This may be a structural problem in the current model, and, if so, the community might see it again in any later RSE that either is or becomes recognized as a community leader.
If others agree, the question becomes how to address it. One option raised by Sean Turner in the context of IASA2 discussions was making this an employee position whose term is not limited; there are others as well.
As a practical matter, I do not believe that the time available allows the IETF LLC to put out an RFP without referencing the current model. But during the community comments on the statement of work, I encourage others to consider how flexible we can be within the confines of the current model to enable an evolution to RFC Editor Model 3. That may enable us to hire an RSE with the view toward that evolution, as well as one dedicated to the work for all of us which is consistent across the models: producing an RFC Series that serves the streams and the Internet technical community as best we can.
My thoughts as individual only,
regards,
Ted Hardie
