Hi Adam, I posed a simple question to Sara earlier, one I'd really like to have an answer to. Your points about fabricated assumptions below brings this to mind again, because fabricated assumptions are prone to appear in the absence of fact. So I'll ask you what I asked Sara, with added emphasis: Did the RSE indicate that she did not intend to renew _before_ you informed her that you were going to put the contract out for bid in 2021, or _after_, (possibly as a result of you informing her about the early re-bid)? Regards, Henrik On 2019-06-26 21:29, 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] > > > 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. > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
