Hi Stephen -
Sorry for the delay in responding - I've mostly been off line or only
with an iPad. Comments in line
On 8/30/2019 2:00 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
Just on two of the more general points; (I'm sure Sarah or
someone else from RSOC will reply to the SOW specifics)...
On 30/08/2019 18:30, Michael StJohns wrote:
This has the feel to me of a push towards a more "managed" RFC Editor vs
the independent model we've had over the lifetime of the series - and
doing it by small nibbles and by delay.
We had a joint IAB/RSOC call before these mails went out and
my estimation of that was there everyone who was on that call
really wanted the community to determine whether or not we
end up with a more "managed" RSE or a more independent one as
we have now. From what I've seen and heard, there are people
with varying opinions on that managed vs. independent continuum
both within and outside the IETF leadership. So, no, I don't
think it'd be fair to describe this as "a push towards" more
managed. (Given the history, I can understand if some people
have that impression though.)
There's two things going on here - the language of the document
specifically "matrixed environment with divided authority" and other
phrases and the specific effect of maintaining a status quo with the
current oversight regime for another 1.5 to 2.5 years. I'll
probably touch upon the first in my response to Sarah's response to me.
I would suggest that we've mostly come to an agreement that the current
de facto oversight model substantially contributed to the current
crisis. Strangely, the words that describe that model haven't changed
substantively for quite a while - but the people implementing the
"oversight" portion of the model have. If I could turn back time, I'd
move back to the status quo ante just prior to the award of Heather's
current contract and use that hands-off light touch going forward until
the community comes to some agreement about changing the 30+ year
traditions of the RFC Editor independence. I'm concerned that if we
just let the current structure stand, that the status quo will be a
managed RSE and that it will be difficult or impossible to change back.
I haven't seen any acknowledgement from the IAB as a whole that this is
even a problem they're considering.
With respect to the evolution of the RFC Series - I haven't
seen any clear statement from anyone of the changes they
believe need to be made.
I don't believe we have a clear statement of changes that may
be desired. Partly, that's I guess because people have different
opinions as to where it's best to end up. But from chatting
with people, I do think there seems to be a fairly widespread
opinion that having the RSE be supposedly responsible for
day-to-day supervision of the RPC (as is called for in RFC6635)
isn't a good plan today.
Sure. And that's yet another thing that's being conflated as being
tied into the notion of editorial independence when it isn't.
Strangely, this appeared to work fine for 6+ years with the occasional
bobble and with understanding on both sides. I haven't actually seen
even the beginnings of a proposal as to who should manage this if its
not the RSE with the possible exception of mumblings that it should fall
under the IAD.
And that opinion seems to be held by
people from all parts of the managed vs. independent continuum
mentioned above. So while there isn't afaik anything like a
complete list of proposed changes, there do seem to be some
changes that may be uncontroversial and useful. (I'm fairly
sure there will also be some ideas in this space that will
be controversial:-)
If you can find me a path to editorial independence, I'll help you find
a path on fixing what you think might be broken with the RSE/RPC
relationship.
In fact, the US Government's Contracting Officer vs Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative (CO vs COTR) may be a decent way to
structure this. The contracting entity maintains responsibility for the
contract as CO, the RSE (as COTR) isn't responsible for the RPC
contract day to day performance, but only providing information to the
CO on how the RPC is doing. Or better yet co-COTRs in the form of the
RSE and the ISE.
Later, Mike
Cheers,
S.
