Michael, Please see inline. I’ve snipped, because scrolling pages annoys me. :)
Thanks Sarah
1) We the RSOC like Heather personally (or so the RSOC has said
repeatedly).
SB// I don’t believe the RSOC has made a comment one way or another about “liking” Heather. The RSOC’s job isn’t to like someone - or dislike someone - it was to perform the IAB-delegated task of oversight. I think what you’re getting at is the part of my note that said that we wanted to bid the contract again, and that we were indicated that doing so was NOT a comment on Heather’s performance. That remains the case, as stated.
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.
SB// I’m trying to understand why the RSOC is being belittled like this. Help me understand. We don’t need an excuse. The IAB doesn't need an excuse to reseat the RSOC - we serve at their pleasure. The contract doesn’t need “an excuse” to be extended, or not, for up to 2 additional times after being awarded; there’s nothing in 6635 that states we need a reason. One would assume there’d be one; one might even hope there’d be one, and one should certainly expect a conversation about it. I’ve also answered the “why” portion of your question. The RSOC was concerned that the last time we went to bid, there was only 1 respondent. And while I am not trying to bring Heather into this, one of the things I deeply admired about her comportment was that she too brought this up as a point of concern. The RSOC, the IAB, indeed most of the IETF “leadership” (for lack of a better term) is comprised of volunteers. We have day jobs. Even in our day jobs when you get into executing big processes, the timeline can get away from you. Here, because there was a decent level of unknown raised by the new RSOC, we decided to run through the process early.
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.
SB// “Grudgingly” - where does that characterization come from? Help me understand. We didn’t enter this lightly. We were concerned that bidding the contract again would be construed as something other than where we landed; but no one said terminate. No where in my language, in the RSOC language, actually, of our discussions, was the word “terminate” used. I can’t speak for other’s intents and motivations, and consensus doesn’t always mean every one agreed, but the RSOC never recommended terminating the contract. As was previously stated at some point on this very, very long thread, there is nothing that barred the current RSE from bidding for the job again. I’m human, all members of the RSOC are human, so I accept that we might have better worded our recommendation. If that’s your position, please, send me the language, and I’d be happy to review with the RSOC and note where we can improve.
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.
SB// Just to be pedantic, we did not send a note to the IAB with 2 and 3; we sent the note, which Ted has now shared as part of the IAB minutes, recommending to extend, and then rebid, to refine the process that some felt was not executed well the first time.
5) Heather, analyzing both what has been said and not said
declined the extension for the reasons she stated.
SB// Heather has sent 2 notes to the list on her reasons. If there’s any confusion here, I suggest re-reading them.
6) Some of us are sad, and I'm not sure of who that includes.
SB// Speaking for myself, I am extremely disappointed and sad that she is leaving, particularly in this way. I am very sad she’s felt the way she has, and I sincerely hope that this doesn’t change the amount of positive and grateful feedback the community has sent in the middle of all of this, or cast a shadow on the actual work she’s delivered as RSE. We knew when we made the recommendation that this outcome was a potential risk. Unfortunately, I don’t have the skills to rewind this clock and undo all of the pieces that got us here. But I’ll also state this, from my own personal perspective. The notion that the RSOC recommendation alone is what prompted Heather to not reup her contract is absurd. Evidence? Heather’s 2 notes make that clear. My own personal experience with Heather is that she has not shown herself to be impulsive; she’s also shown herself to take the longevity of the role of RSE seriously, both in her views of the RFC Series and longevity, as well as the RSE role herself. All of that leads me to say again - the notion that the RSOC made a recommendation to extend the contract 1 year and then rebid - this notion alone would be why Heather would not stay on as RSE doesn’t hold water.
SB// Finally, I’ve seen some wonderful points and concerns and potential next steps come out of this. I sincerely hope that we as a community can continue to make progress in that lane. Examine what went “wrong” (could be refined, changed, made better, etc), decide where we want to go, and then take the transparent steps to get there.
</2 cents> Sarah
-
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.
|
