On 6/24/2019 12:22 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:31 AM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I note with interest that the last IAB session (12 June) had "RSE Contract" as an executive session item. I also note with interest, that there is no RSE item on the schedule for the next IAB session (26 June).
I'm at a loss to understand why the contract item was an Exec session item - contract discussions on terms, recompensation - things that are generally considered personnel actions, sure those are exec discussions. Talking about a decision to renew then terminate the contract for reasons not related to performance (or so we've been told by the RSOC), not so much. It would be helpful if the IAB were to release the minutes on this section of their last meeting to provide the community with more context on how they've been making RSE related decisions. That may serve to answer some of Aaron's questions.
Mike,
Please see my comments to Aaron.
I saw them - didn't think much of them. There's a difference between talking strategy for the RSE series (e.g. how do we get more bidders - when do we need to be thinking about that) and things that are normally tied to personnel actions. This feels from the outside - at least to me - more of an attempt to slip a personnel decision into the pile masquerading as a strategic direction.
It is normal to consider the RSOC's recommendation on the continuation of the contract in executive session, since the scope of the discussion may be wide. In this case, the session changed a bit when Heather's decision came in, to focus on recruitment.So let me ask - when did the RSOC inform the IAB of its decision?
Who from the IAB besides Christian and Robert were aware on 6 June that the RSOC was about to send the note to Heather?
When you received Heather's note declining the extension and her reasons for it, did you discuss asking her to reconsider? At this point, it was all still "private" and could have been remediated. Or was the resignation a "good" or "ok" result as far as the IAB was concerned? AFAICT, it was about 10 days from resignation to public announcement and 6 days after the IAB meeting.
My question still stands - why did the IAB/RSOC feel the need to take the termination action 2.5 years prior to the expiration of the renewal - I'm not really buying the "we wanted to revamp the RFP process" statement. Shouldn't that have been the decision of the (differently composed) IAB of 1 or 2 years in the future?
As I noted in my message to Aaron, the RSOC makes a recommendation on the continuation of the contract to the IAB, which then considers and confirms with the IASA (IAOC or LLC). None of the rest of the process had run when Heather made her decision. It is possible that it would have changed, either in discussion with the IAB now or during the decision in two years to proceed with the RFP, but the process did not reach that point.And if the IAB/RSOC had done its job, they would have simply told Heather that she was being renewed for another 2 years per the contract, and left the discussion of the RFP process to later. Of course, this could have been a mistake by the RSOC and all of them are resigning? Or a mistake by the IAB and they have a remediation plan to prevent this from happening?
In any event, the RSOC (and I would assume the IAB) really wanted to put this up for bid at the end of the term - quoting from your other email:
"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.RFP processes are costly both to the offeror and to the bidder. Unless there was a perceived concrete benefit, redoing an RFP simply for the sake of re-doing an RFP makes no business sense. In this case, you've probably eliminated the most qualified candidate as a future bidder by doing what the contract allowed you to do, instead of doing what you should have done.
It may be time for the community to reconsider the RSOC/IAB relationship and whether or not that board should be independent of the IAB. It's probably also time to consider the impact of the LLC changes on the contractual oversight pieces of the RSE process.
It's my belief formed over the 35+ years I've been involved, that it's important for the community to have an independent RSE, and publication stream, and to the greatest extent possible, an RSE whole is an equal partner with the IAB, IESG, IRTF and the IETF participants and not just a "contractor". I'm afraid I'm not seeing that same vision from the current overseers and that diminishes the community in ways that we will regret.
Later, Mike
regards,
Ted Hardie
Mike
On 6/21/2019 11:45 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:
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
