This language is not professional or respectful, and we urge careful consideration in future replies. Disputing one's view of events is of course welcome; insinuation that others are speaking or acting in bad faith is not. - IETF Sergeant at Arms On 19/06/26 13:41, Michael StJohns wrote: > Wow - just wow. > > On 6/26/2019 3:29 PM, Adam Roach wrote: >> By way of disclosure, I'll be the first to point out that I'm on both >> the IESG and the RSOC, and so I'm going to have a certain perspective >> on the events underway. I hope that my statements below stand on their >> own, independently of whatever interests my position may imply. >> >> On 6/26/19 10:20 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: >>> I am claiming that some think that this situation has just occured, and it >>> resulted in the RSE deciding to do something else rather than attempt to >>> continue fighting against some bad thing happening. >>> (I am not saying that I even understand what the "thing" was, or agree that >>> it was "bad") >> >> >> You or anyone else for that matter. What happened is: >> >> 1. We, the community, liked Heather personally >> 2. Heather is leaving >> 3. So we're sad [1] >> > What a piece of self serving revisionism. What appears to have really > happened from the emails that have been published is: > > > 1) We the RSOC like Heather personally (or so the RSOC has said repeatedly). > > 2) Because of this the RSOC decided we needed to recompete the RSE and > used the excuse of needing to tweek the RFP process - said process that > could have been delayed for almost 3 years but was considered by the > RSOC to be of critical importantance (why?) that the RSE just did it now. > > 3) Because of the short time to do so the RSOC grudgingly offered to > extend the current RSE contract through the end of 2021 and notified her > of the intent to terminate the contract at that point. > > 4) At some point near the time Heather was notified, the RSOC sent a > note to the IAB indicating (2) and (3), which Heather would have read. > > 5) Heather, analyzing both what has been said and not said declined the > extension for the reasons she stated. > > 6) Some of us are sad, and I'm not sure of who that includes. > > > >> 1. >> >> >> You're kind of pointing sideways at some conspiracy theories that >> people have come up with to explain why #2 happened, but they're not >> really supported by facts in evidence. This is natural: because of #3, >> it's understandable to try to find someone to blame. But this is why >> you're having a hard time understanding what the "thing" is: it's >> whatever boogeyman the conspiracy theorists have chosen to invent for >> that moment. And so it's definitely "bad", but it isn't actually "real". >> >> I'm not saying that all of the critical posts on this topic are wrong. >> There are some valid points being made about the overall RFC Editor >> model, its history, and where its future may lie; and some of these >> are necessarily being couched as criticism. >> >> But there is also some poorly motivated rage being expressed based on >> wholly fabricated assumptions, much of which seems to be impervious to >> facts and unable to cite sources. Again, this is an understandable and >> natural reaction to being sad, although it is far from helpful. Even >> worse, it may harm our ability to find a suitable replacement for >> Heather: who wants to walk into a community full of rage? >> >> And so I strongly encourage you -- and others -- to be wary of >> arguments based on supposition. Share what you know and think, but >> please don't amplify untested theories. >> >> /a >> >> ____ >> [1] I'm using "sad" here as a proxy for a complicated maelstrom of >> negative emotions that people seem to be undergoing at the moment. >> There's probably an entire doctoral thesis's worth of explanation that >> could be used to describe these emotions more accurately, but I don't >> have the tools to do so. >> >
