|
Apologies for the delay on this - I didn't actually receive this
directly and so this is cut and pasted from the archive. This is
a response to Sarah's original note. My comments inline.
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. MSJ// This was a reference to Adam's formation of the state of
affairs and I agree that the RSOC hasn't indicated they like
Heather. However, why would you feel the need to make that
comment if you didn't expect anyone to push back on the action?
If you expected push back, why didn't you go talk to Heather and
the community first about the grand plan to redo the RFP? > 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. MSJ// I think Nico said it better than I can for the most part, but to reiterate a little bit: Simply because you *can* do something does not mean you *should* do it. And with respect to the reseating of the RSOC - the stated goal (in the for the RSOC was continuity across NOMCOMs and IABs. It seems the height of bad judgement to replace almost 100% of the RSOC in one go, especially without input from the RSE.
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).
> 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. MSJ//From this language in your note to the IAB:
We recognize that with 2020 coming closer, the ability I read that as "we'd really rather terminate the contract this December, but we're out of time, so let's give the RSE the extension and rebid it as soon as possible.". I think I'm fair in assigning the word "grudgingly" to this:
SB// 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. MSJ // I hate that people don't know definitions and can't use
them properly. The definition of terminate is "bring to an end".
Your/RSOC's action set a termination date for the contract
(brought the contract to an end) at the 4 year point and is no
less a termination than if you'd executed the 90 day termination
clause. SB// 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. //MSJ: "Heather - you're doing a fine job. We've recommended to the IAB
and the LLC that we exercise the upcoming renewal". PERIOD. > 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. MSJ// Ditto. > 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. SB//We knew when we made the recommendation that this outcome was
a potential risk. MSJ// Then why didn't you mitigate your risks and the possibility
of community approbation by bringing in Heather (to discuss how to
implement remediation of her successor concerns) and the community
into the discussion before making a recommendation? And isn't it
true that your note to Heather couched this as a "decision" not a
recommendation? SB//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. MSJ// You are correct that it wasn't just the contract
termination that prompted this, but the RSOC and IAB appear to be
the prime movers in the other factors listed by Heather in her
notes. MSJ// And by now I think you know that the extension had to be
for 2 years, not just 1.
</2 cents> Sarah MSJ// While it might be impossible for the RSOC to turn back
time, I'm wondering if there are any actions by the community that
might allow for a restoration of the status quo ante with respect
to the RSE, but not necessarily the IAB or RSOC. I have a number
of knee jerk reactions that fall in the category of changes - but
they are probably suspect because they are knee jerk reactions so
I'll hold off on them for now. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, but I'm still finding it difficult to reconcile what the RSOC did with your stated reasons for doing so.
Mike
arah |
