Hi Stephen,
A comment on mechanics in-line.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:52 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ted,
On 14/07/2019 20:08, Ted Hardie wrote:
> A key question now is whether we conduct the hiring
> according to a slightly modified SOW and have the new incumbent participate
> in the larger discussion or conduct the discussion prior to recruiting a
> new RSE. The first strategy seems to be permitted by RFC 6635 under the
> general rubric of the RSE's role in evolving the series. The second is
> also possible, but the result will likely be that there is no overlap
> between a new incumbent and Heather.
I agree the above is a key question on which we need
community input in the very near term.
I have a question about the options though, we have
previously had Olaf take on the role of acting RSE
(much to his delight wrt the acronym:-). That happened
in different circumstances, with which I'm not familiar
(and I suspect I'd mostly prefer to maintain my innocence
as to those;-).
So I (and I suspect other IETF participants) am unclear
if we do or do not have a real option to try find a
member of the community to take on the role of acting
RSE whilst we do the work on a revision to the RSE model
(aka a substantive revision of 6635).
If that were an option, then I guess we'd have 3 high
level options from which to choose - a) appoint a new
RSE now (which I guess likely has to be the default if
there's no clear community view about other actions),
b) make no appointment whilst the community discuss a
revision to the RSE model, or perhaps, c) try find an
acting RSE whilst the community discuss revision of the
RSE model.
I'm not arguing for option (c) above, but just wonder
if that is or is not a real option.
I think the way to do that would be to have the SOW define what the acting RSE's role is and then put that SOW out for RFPs. Those proposals might well come from community participants whose focus was on facilitation and consensus in IETF contexts, rather than on publication management.
Part of my reasoning here is that the time to conclude a full community discussion isn't really clear yet. If it takes a year, having an interim RSE with that focus on facilitation may well be the right choice, but it also may require us to fund the volunteer's effort.
Just my personal opinion,
Ted
I guess the potential
benefit would be that we'd have time for proper community
discussion but also have someone to whom e.g. decisions
about format change details could be directed if a case
arose that the RFC production centre weren't happy to
handle themselves. But, there may be downsides to that
option that I'm not seeing, so I'm not sure.
Cheers,
S.
