--On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 16:53 +1200 Nevil Brownlee <nevil.brownlee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > +1 about Heather not having RFC writing experience before > taking on the RSE position. > > Actually, the former RSOC's search committee (yes, I was on > it), made sure applicants had lots of experience of publishing > technical material, as well as considerable experience with > networking and computer technology. We narrowed down the > field to three likely applicants, and brought them all to the > Beijing IETF meeting so that they could see for themselves how > the IETF worked. Hi. I don't know whether to respond on this thread or the "RSE Bid Process" one - this may be a bit of both. First, I want to confirm what Nevil says above (I am fairly sure I was on that committee too; I was certainly on the RSOC). Unless "we" are trying to make changes in how the RFC Editor Function works that go far beyond what is (or is not) in what is in the draft SOW, there have been several misconceptions in this thread and the related ones. First and foremost, let me reinforce something several others have said: This is not a copy-editing role. it is not even a technical editing role. I'd be concerned about a candidate who did not have technical editing experience but I'm not sure that is a showstopper (i.e., "required"). I'd like to hear from Heather and Ole (and anyone else with in-depth experience and not just opinions) about that. I'd be much less concerned if a candidate did not have copy-editing experience, but I believe all of the good technical editors I've known and worked with have had that experience. If that generalizes, copy-editing experience is a non-issue if we more or less insist on technical editing experience. Someone who sees the RSE job as editing documents would be an inappropriate choice for it. As far as experience writing RFCs is concerned, maybe it would be helpful, but the perspective gaining from experience running and splicing fiber optic cable in production environments might be helpful in designing network-level protocols.. .but not very much. It is essential that someone selected for the role be (or be able to rapidly become) comfortable working with the community, but we should remember --as some recent threads have illustrated -- that the culture is changing rapidly. I'm not entirely sure that Jon Postel would have been comfortable working in today's culture.for themselve Instead, this is a strategic leadership and management role. In retrospect, maybe we would have less confusion about, e.g., copy editing, if we had called the position "RFC Series Publisher" when we made up the "RSE" title, but, given how few people seem to understand what a publisher actually does, maybe it would have made no difference. However, the old adage about really smart managers and executives choosing staff and looking for colleagues who know more than they do would apply here: nothing in the job description the IAB has proposed for themselves for the nomcom says "understands issues in technical publishing well enough to do a senior-level job in that area". I'm not even sure that is a requirement for the RSOC (and don't know how many current RSOC members would qualify if it were).. If the RSOC and IAB are looking for someone who will quietly do the job, follow their lead about strategy directions, and not try to educate (and, if necessary, push back based on greater specialist expertise, then they are making a really fundamental change in the role. If 6635 appears to say anything about that sort of focus of authority and restrictions on the role, rather than the strategic leadership one, then it is broken and needs to be fixed rather than slavishly followed... but I don't believe there is any language in it to that effect. So, as Nevil pointed out, what we looked for was lots of experience of publishing technical material, as well as considerable experience with networking and computer technology. I think that is still what we need to look for, noting the priority of the "publishing technical material" criterion. I would have added "experience in preparing technical standards for publication" as at least highly desirable. My recollection is that we considered that too and considered it quite a bit. Something Nevil didn't mention was that plausible candidates were not easy to find, even with no incumbent to compete against. We did considerable beating of the proverbial bushes, reaching out via personal contacts at publishers of relevant technical journals, at professional societies who publish journals of record, present and former editorial staff for other standards bodies, and so on rather than confining ourselves to anything that would correspond to the IETF LLC (or IAOC) issuing an RFP, announcing it to the community, and seeing who shows up to "bid". For a position like this, even describing the position search a and process as a "bid" is offensive and likely to convince some people we would like to have as candidates to say "they either don't understand what they are doing or are not interested in anyone like me" and then move on. This is not like, e.g., getting someone to build a software package to a complete set of specifications. It is lots more like recruiting someone to design a system and then oversee its implementation. Unless we are making significant changes to the role, the RSE should probably be seen as less even responsible to the IAB and RSOC on day to day details than the IETF LLC Executive Director is to the LLC Board. Finally, for those who think an "acting" or "interim" appointment while we reconsider the position is the right thing to do... maybe you are right. We have gotten ourselves into such a horrible position that I have trouble thinking about optimal solutions. However, please be very careful about analogies and assumptions about how Olaf's term as Acting RSE worked out. Olaf obviously had a great deal of IETF experience, both as a recognized leader in the community and as an RFC author. That made it easier for him to function in a placeholder role without alienating the community, which was undoubtedly important. However, he did not (at least as far as I recall) have the depth of technical and standards publishing, and publishing strategy, experience discussed above and that others have been trying to get at. I think it was very important (his comments would be welcome) that he did have an RSOC that contained multiple people with at least significant pieces of those types of experience. That RSOC saw its mission much more in terms of supporting him and helping him succeed in the role -- including giving advise on the strategic publication issues to which he was happy to listen-- than as "oversight" or supervision or evaluation of contractual compliance. That seems to have changed and, unless we can get back there, an Acting RSE with only IETF experience might be at a significant disadvantage relative to keeping the Series going in a stable and efficient way. Mote generally, putting someone into the RSE role --either "acting" or semi-permanently -- who has good community experience and relationships, little or no strategic publication leadership perspective and experience, and without the support of in-depth expertise in the RSOC (or some other arrangement to which a supportive RSOC is prepared to defer in matters of expertise) is a recipe for disaster... or at least major changes in the character of the Series whether intentional or not and whether reflecting community consensus or not. Finally, we have to keep in mind that whomever takes the position next is, at least IMO, going to be facing a much more difficult situation than Heather did when she came on Board. First, the community appears to be much more divided about the role of the RSE and the Series more generally. For example, there were no loud voices for radical changes around such as those that manifested themselves in the RFC++ effort a year ago. In particular, whether it is the case or not, recent discussion on the IETF list has made it clear that there are are suspicions in part of community that at least parts of the present situation are the result of efforts to accomplish goals that could not be accomplished by community consensus. Again independent of the validity of that concern, its existence has a corrosive effect that will make the role of the appointee harder and that may make recruiting of highly-qualified candidates harder. In addition, we are in the midst of a very significant change to how RFCs are published and made available -- probably the most significant change since sometimes in the 1980s. Some recent events have convinced me that, as we discover where what we wanted leads, we are likely to have to debug and reconsider parts of the design as well as the particular tools that implement it. Unless we change the job so that some appointed volunteer body [micro]manages the decisions that will be needed, the new RSE, acting or not and with Heather's help or not, is going to be the critical decision-maker about what will certainly turn to be complex tradeoffs. That, too, is likely to be a recruiting issue because it is likely that anyone who is really qualified for the job is going to ask many focused questions about what they would be getting into. If someone who asks and gets accurate answers says to themselves "especially in the light of a divided community, do I really want that stress and risk of failure because of decisions made before I came on board and things I won't be able to control?" that is one less possible qualified candidate for the RSOC to consider. It is more than a little scary. If I has a plan about an easy path to navigate the situation and do so easily, I'd say do, but I don't. However, I do believe that it is unlikely that we are going to make significant progress as long as some members of the community are behaving in a way that --justly or not-- cause others to be concerned about whether information is being hidden from the community or that there os a hidden agenda about using the change of RSE to radically change the RFC Editor Function. best, john
