|
On 7/8/2019 12:53 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Hi Mike,
Apologies for the delay in replying; I was off for the
July 4th long weekend. Some thoughts in-line.
No worries - I was on a break too.
Top
posting and in line:
Hi
Ted -
Thanks
for this outline. However, I'm not sure that going
forward with the RFP before fixing the structural issues
with the relationships between the IAB, RSOC, RSE and
LLC makes sense. Patrick's note is on point.
Unfortunately, figuring out how to fix those
relationships,and getting agreement is probably not
possible in the next 2-3 months.
If the community prefers adjusting RFC 6635 before
re-running the bid process, that's probably possible, but we
will likely lose the transition period between Heather and
the new RSE as a result. That's a pretty important
trade-off, and one I'd want folks to discuss.
That actually wasn't the point of the paragraphs. I too don't
believe its possible to fix 6635 in time for getting an RFP and
transition out, but I do believe that it is possible to put 6635
aside for now as "broken", and work on a more standard business
basis. In other words, just an RFP, contracting entity (e.g. the
LLC), and the successful bidders using mostly of the documentation
and SOW work that we already had in place for Heather and making
sure that 6635 is not included by reference in the ultimate
contract.
Given
the small size of the community of editor/publishers we
are going to try and draw from and our current missteps,
my estimation is that we're unlikely to get more than
one bid if that, and that any contract terms we're
offered by a given bidder are going to be much tighter
and much more restrictive on things like IAB/RSOC
"management" and "oversight". There's going to want to
be more assurance by the bidders that independent
contractor means "independent". I would also expect
that bidders will want more assurances against arbitrary
termination of the contract.
Considering
all of the above, let me make an alternate proposal.
First that we ask back the previous RSOC in place of the
current group and ask them to serve until we resolve the
issues with the various relationships (e.g. the next
publication of 6635 as a community - not IAB -
document). We give them the responsibility for running
the bid process and for the ultimate selection of the
final candidate with the advice and agreement of the
LLC.
As my note pointed out, 3 of the 4 current members of the
RSOC were serving before the refresh, with tenure up to 5
years. So "asking back" the previous RSOC would continue to
include them. That seems to limit, in my eyes, the impact
of this change.
This is a bit disingenuous. In Sept of 2018 I think I'm correct
in saying that the IAB told the entire RSOC that they had to
reapply for their positions and also opened it others. The RSOC
prior to that point consisted of 6 appointed members (including
one IESG member and the chair), and two IAB members plus the RSE
and an IAOC rep as non-voting members. The RSOC after that point
consists of 4 appointed members, of which three were continued
(include the IESG member and the chair), and one new member. E.g.
1/2 of the old RSOC was let go or didn't reapply. The three
members not continuing represented about 24 years of cumulative
experience. The three retained members have a total cumulative
experience of 11 years. Asking the three non-continuing members
to rejoin would almost triple the cumulative experience. It would
also restore the I* member vs community member ratio back to where
it was previously.
Further, I'm not sure that the precedent this would set
is in line with the preferences expressed in RFC 6635 or
your note. Until there is an adjustment of the process, the
only way to change the RSOC membership is for the IAB to do
it. This would establish as precedent that the IAB could
dismiss the sitting RSOC as a body if it did not like the
outcome of their work. There's a great deal of both text
and established practice that makes the IAB hands-off to the
work of the RSOC, and this would seem to run directly
against that intent.
I'm sure there are at least a few of us that would be willing to
draft an emergency RFC to adjust the process for an interim
period. I don't see that as a deal breaker.
With respect to the IAB taking a hands off approach - I'm not
sure that's the correct view of the reality of the situation. If
it is, then we need to ask whether there's a failure of
supervision in addition to other possible problems. There's this
old adage - you can delegate authority, but you can't get away
with delegating all the responsibility.
As an additional point, you use the term above "arbitrary
termination". I hope you understand that termination was
not invoked here. The contract does include provisions for
termination with a much shorter notice, and it includes
provisions for not renewing the contract. The RSOC's
recommendation to the IAB was for renewal of the contract
for the available term. I've discussed in other messages
how that intent likely went astray because the message
included other elements, but the upshot is that she was not
terminated. The portion of the process that completed was a
recommendation that her contract be renewed. She has
decided not to take up a renewal. As noted elsewhere in
this message, we regret that, but we also need to be clear
it was not a termination.
Could you please post the email that the RSOC sent to the RSE? I
believe the words "recommend" or "recommendation" were not part of
that message. Also, given the "hands off", and the presence of
IAB members on the RSOC it would be naive in extreme to expect
there to be any pushback from the IAB to such a recommendation.
So "decision" or "decided", not "recommend" or "recommendation" is
more correct I believe.
With respect to "termination" - to terminate is to end, to cut
something short, to bring to a close. Informing the RSE that the
first renewal option was being exercised, but that the second
option would never be exercised is as much a termination as
providing a 30 day notice. It set a finite termination date
fairly far in the future, but it set it none the less. You
might not like the use of the word, but it is accurate.
In every contract that I've been involved in of the form, "base
plus option years", the renewals have been mostly pro-forma - the
expectation on both sides was that unless there was a problem and
as long as performance was acceptable, the contract would be
renewed. Stability was a desired characteristic on both sides.
In the RSE case - pro-forma renewal was my assumption based on a
need to continue to produce a world class document series with a
lot of historical baggage for a community with diverse needs and
sometimes troublesome wants. This is why this action on the
part of the RSOC without any reference to the community is both so
surprising, and so indefensible. My comment on "Arbitrary
termination" in this case is with respect to making sure that both
sides agree on the expectations for the renewals, and each keep
their parts of the bargain irrespective of changes in the people
involved
We
use the existing SOW to the greatest extent possible.
We mostly divorce the IAB from the RSOC/RSE until the
relationship issues are resolved - note that may require
a contract modification with the RSE at some point.
The
previous RSOC does have experience with this bidding
process which should mitigate some possible time sinks
in getting up to speed.
As Heather pointed out some time ago, the previous
bidding process resulted in a single bid, by the incumbent.
Relying on re-running that same process may not be the best
strategy.
I'm doubtful that the problem was the bidding process. I haven't
seen even the first suggestion that there is a plan for ensuring
more bidders. The typical ways you get more bidders are
"increase the offered value of the contract" or "decrease the
scope or quality of work desired". Not sure either of these make
sense for us.
More
inline - applies even if we don't take the above
suggestion.
On
7/3/2019 3:02 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
As folks are aware, there is ongoing discussion on Heather’s decision not to continue as RFC Series Editor (RSE) and about how the situation has been handled. Firstly, we’d like to express our regret at how things have transpired and our willingness to have an open discussion with the community about where we can all best go from here. This mail sets out our view of how recent events unfolded, and our understanding of the process for finding the next RSE.
The RSE currently has a two year contract which began in 2018 and which permitted two extensions of up to two years each. As part of their duties under RFC 6635, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) reviewed the contract in May of this year. On June 6th, they notified Heather Flanagan, the current RSE, that they would recommend the contract be extended for two years. At the same time, they noted an intent to prepare a Request for Proposals during that two year period, in order to address some concerns that were raised about response rates after the last bid process. Immediately afterwards, the RSOC notified the IAB both of their recommendation to renew the contract in 2020 and their intent to prepare an RFP for 2022.
Initial discussions within the IAB would normally have been held at the following IAB meeting, on June 10th. On June 7th, however, the RSE notified the IAB, the IETF LLC Board, and RSOC that she did not intend to renew the contract. The IAB is grateful that she provided early notice and that she has agreed during the remaining months of the existing contract to help the RSOC and IETF community to consider the requirements needed for the next RFC Series Editor.
Discussions on the requirements are ongoing on the IETF list. While we expect additional community discussions of future processes or models, we also want to take advantage of the time Heather’s courtesy provided as best we can. As a result, we believe we should begin the RFP process as set out in RFC 6635 now, with an aim to getting an RSE and a contract in place with sufficient transition time. Since the last running of this process, the IAOC has concluded and the IETF LLC taken shape, so we wanted to lay out to the community our understanding of that process with the IETF LLC in place. As with other aspects of the IAOC to LLC transition, the RSOC and IAB will aim for minimal change to the current process, and zero unexpected changes. That would give the following steps:
0) The RSOC prepares a short paper on
how a succession plan for the RFC editor might work,
and how recruiting in this space might work. That
paper needs to cover what happens if the RFP fails to
receive even one bidder.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No comment on this? Any ideas even?
1) The RSOC prepares a statement of work based on RFC 6635 and previous RFPs.
2) The RSOC sends the SOW out for public comment.
If IAB members, the IAB, or the IETF LLC board have comments, they occur during this period. There is no separate review for them.
3) After the RSOC finalizes the SOW, it notifies the IAB, which requests the IETF LLC issue an RFP.
Instead, the RSOC provides the SOW to the LLC which
turns it over to the lawyers.
I believe this is functionally the same, since the IAB
does not approve the SOW, simply forwards it.
Note: this is not an approval step, just the mechanics of who has the token to turn this crank.
4) The RFP is issued by the IETF LLC.
5) The RSOC, or a committee formed from within the RSOC, reviews the proposals and interviews candidates. Depending on the number of candidates this could involve steps for creating a short list before running interviews.
This is the one that bothers me the most.
Given the missteps its unclear this is the right group
of people to be picking the next RSE. Instead, pick a
search committee (as described I think in the previous
SOW), consisting of folks that have at least a little
knowledge in the publication/editing space. These don't
actually need to be IETF participants especially if the
SOW is tightly written.
I believe you're right that this could be a search
committee formed by the RSOC, rather than totally within it.
As an example, the RSOC could decide that it needs to use a
search firm to reach appropriate candidates. Under the
current process, however, step 6 remains the same: the RSOC
must make the recommendation.
And I'm suggesting that it's possible this RSOC may be fatally
tarnished and we would be less likely to receive quality bids if
it's just "business as usual". If we're shown as trying to
remediate some of the issues identified by the RSE prior to
issuing the RFP it may increase our chances of actually getting
someone who "gets us".
6) The RSOC recommends an appointment to the IAB.
7) The IAB approves the appointment, subject to contracting.
Here's another possible issue. It's
unclear that the community and the IAB/RSOC are
aligned with what they want as an RFC editor. I'm
not sure that will matter in the end especially if we
get only one or two bidders.
I believe the IAB and RSOC are both following these
discussion closely and I am sure that we will continue to
get more input from the community in the form of comments on
the SOW.
8) The IETF LLC negotiates a contract with the appointed RSE.
9) After timing is agreed, the new RSE is announced and a transition begins.
Once again, we regret how things have transpired and will be engaging with the community on the longer term handling of how the IAB, RSE and IETF relate to one another. That may include a new version of RFC 6635. Until those conclude, however, we believe we need to move forward with the current process. As part of that, we want to confirm with the community our understanding of the process required under the existing model and procedures.
If you have comments on this point, please send them by replying to this mail or to iab@xxxxxxx and rsoc@xxxxxxx. Note that both lists include the current RSE as a member. If you have comments on the SOW, e.g., on appropriate length or renewal intervals, please send them to RSOC after the SOW has been published for community review. For comments on the broader situation, the ietf@xxxxxxxx list is, as always, available.
As an immediate structural change, we need either the
IAB or the RSOC, not both, to have their fingers in the
RSE pie. If that's the RSOC, then it should probably
be selected by the community, not by the IAB.
As I noted above, the RSOC generally operates
independently of the IAB. The current documents call out
specific times when the IAB must approve the actions of the
RSOC, particularly this:
For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and
firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final
decision is the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC
would do the following:
o perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these
reviews to the IAB.
o manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate
appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB
approval).
The IAB treats these approvals as it does confirmations of
the IESG slate for NomCom appointments. We don't re-run the
process, we confirm that the process ran as described.
And this is possibly the saddest statement of all. We have an
RSOC that is beholden to the IAB, not the community. The only way
the community can enforce accountability on the RSOC is by firing
the IAB. After the various emails from the folk involved, I'm
saddened that response from the IAB is that it's all on the RSOC.
In any event, during the times I was on the IAB, the IAB was not
a rubber stamp for the Nomcom. It was as much concerned with the
correctness of the result as it was the correctness of the
process. With your above statement, I'm unclear what the value
add of the IAB is for either the RSOC or the Nomcom.
Mike
regards,
Ted
Later, Mike
Regards,
Ted Hardie
for the IAB
|
