Is there a real problem here that has manifested in the form of incorrect outcomes, or is this hypothetical?
Sent from my iPhone
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:20 AM Richard Barnes < rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:12 AM Richard Barnes < rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/24/2019 12:22 PM, Ted Hardie
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.
I have to agree with Mike here. The outcome of the RFC++ BoF made this last part pretty clear that the separation is valuable.
Katheen and Mike, maybe you could expand on why you think this separation is valuable?
It seems to me that the primary way the RFC editor adds value to the world is by publishing the IAB and IETF's documents. So a close association seems appropriate.
This statement goes back to the RFC++ BoF, you left out the IRTF and ISE in your list of where the RFC editor adds value and the community made it pretty clear that it sees values in streams other then just the IETF and IAB streams. If the RFC editor did not have the "separation of powers" Lief cited, the community may not have had a voice in outcomes of the RFC++ BoF.
I'm happy to include IRTF and ISE; their omission was a simple oversight. But even if we expand my statment to say "The primary way the RFC editor adds value is by publishing IAB/IETF/IRTF/ISE documents", then wouldn't the natural course be, for example, for the owners of those streams to collectively oversee the RFC editor?
In other words, form follows function -- the proper for selection and management of the RFC editor should be based on what we expect the that role to accomplish. I'm not understanding what desired function would be driving the need for independent powers.
The largest customer would likely wind up with the most power in this relationship.. The current structure has allowed the RSE to maintain the streams as an archive series and preserve important properties of the separate streams.. The independence allows the RSE to have a clear and open voice on the RFC series and management of the collective streams as opposed to being subordinate to the various stream owners. This is a difficult to work with community and pressure is applied in many directions, this independence may be key to keeping an RSE long term.
Best regards, Kathleen
--Richard
-Kathleen
--Richard
However in Ted's go-forward note, it appears as if a path to get closer to some of the proponents goals for the RFC++ BoF are proposed. Where will the discussion take place for the go-forward as I think community involvement will be key and hopefully the community will have the time for this (should have been unnecessary at this time) activity.
I am interested to see answers to Mike's questions.
Regards, Kathleen
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
--
--
--
|
