Sarah explained the contract question already:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IdUciHW3pdluk1m2pYaqk9JCj4c
I have nothing to add to her explanation, as there's really no more
substantive detail regarding the contract than what she already included.
To your second query: I will point out that planning takes time, and no
one wanted to rush the process.
/a
On 6/26/19 3:17 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
Adam,
OK - I’ll bite - since you are a member of the committee that did the deed (so to speak)
please tell us exactly why did the committee (and you) decide it was the time to truncate the contract early
as others have pointed out - even with the plan as it seems to have been decided the work would
be done by a future RSOC - why not let the future RSOC decided on its own what it wanted to do
instead of binding it to the plan of the current RSOC?
Scott
On Jun 26, 2019, at 3:29 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
• We, the community, liked Heather personally
• Heather is leaving
• So we're sad [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.
