Hi Ted, Let me answer inline. > On Jul 24, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > To summarize, it is your belief that Heather did not renew because of the decision to rebid early, and for no other reason. > > Is that correct? My email on this thread stated, "We believe that our recommendation to put the contract out to bid again in two years was part of the reason behind her decision." This is the RSOC belief. > > In addition, it is your (collective) impression that there is an problem with the RSE position, and that we need to change how the RSE position is, but you haven’t stated what the problem is or how you would like to change the position. You would like the community to help with this problem, although you haven’t said what it is. > > Is that also correct? The RSOC hasn't made a statement on any of this, outside of the fact that we recognize that the community is discussing most or all of the points you're asking above, and we're stating that we're following that conversation. You're welcome tor review our minutes, but to my knowledge, we haven't had a conversation about having a problem with the RSE position, or changing it (we've talked about the relationship of RSE to RPC as defined within 6635, within the context of the missed SLA, but I don't believe it rises to the occasion of "change something fundamental about entire roles"). To be clear, we're not saying there is a problem, but rather, acknowledging that the community believes there is, and following Ted's email regarding the search for an RSE, or revise the process, or any new options that arise, we're currently listening and taking the feedback. Thanks, Sarah
