I agree with Ted and Mike's assessment actually.
Mary.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 3:51 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matthew, with respect, what Adam said was also quite disrespectful, just more subtly so. Not that two wrongs make a right—they do not. But consistency is a virtue.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 26, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
>
