Sarah, I have tried, not completely successfully, to follow the discussion since this note was posted, probably not completely successfully. I've tried several times to draft notes analyzing the situation, but the have all come out long enough that I was concerned that few people would read them and few of those who did would pay attention. Because I've not run out of time, I want to summarize what I believe are key points, most of which appear to have received almost no discussion, and then make a suggestion. It is longer than I'd like but, with apologies to Niklaus Wirth, I don't have time to make it much shorter. First I think Mike's "try this" effort to recast the SOW is a step in the right direction but skips over, probably wisely, a key point. If the comments and suggestion in this note go nowhere, I think his draft is a better starting point than your/ the RSOC's original proposal. However,... A mistake (or more than one) was made that led to the current situation. You and the RSOC have apologized for your role in that mistake and I, and I hope most others, have accepted that apology. The difficulty, which several people tried to get a focus on (before IETF 105, at the plenary, and thereafter), was the question of whether the RSOC (and, to some extent, the IAB) understood (generally and consistent with community understanding) the role and function of the RFC Series, the relationship of the RSE to that function, the appropriate interpretation of "oversight", some important management and procurement differences between hiring and management of high-level professional and, procurement of easily-substitutable commodity items. One thing that, AFAICT, we haven't seen is an analysis by the RSOC and IAB about your assumptions. Without that and especially with a draft SOW that you have described as being very close to the ones you've used before, it might be reasonable to expect that regardless of what the SOW says, the result will be more of the same in terms of issues with management, oversight, etc., only with selection of candidates who will put up with it. To make things more complicated, I think there is a periodic lingering suspicion in parts of the community that, after the RFC++ BOF in July 2018 and the fairly clear message that any such changes were in the province of the RSE, the people who had advocated those changes hoped that Heather would swiftly address and make them and that, when she didn't, they were happy to see her announce her resignation, possibly tried to set up circumstances under which should would do so, and perhaps hoped that she could be replaced by someone who would put compliance to IAB/IESG wishes ahead of the well-being of the series or broader community needs and consensus. If one starts from that rather paranoid view and the explanation about what was misunderstood and how the misunderstandings are being corrected suggested above is absent, then it is easy to see the current proposals as steps in the direction of bringing strategy and details for the series under firm IESG/IAB control and a little bit short of sincere. One of the key results of the above is that, coming out of Montreal the IAB and RSOC had a serious credibility problem with some portion of the community, I believe a large portion. Many of those who did not agree there was a problem understood that others did. Whether that perception is fair or not is almost irrelevant. It is the perception and the perception is a problem for processes involving the RFC Editor function and the IETF community generally. Then this round of discussions and proposals started. It started with the decision to temporarily split the RSE role into two separate jobs and and job descriptions and then to assign the planning, discussion, and selection processes to different bodies. Those both may be reasonable things to do, but they has downsides as well up advantages, especially if members of the community are concerned that the process is being selected to control outcomes. But those splitting and assignment decisions -- decisions that may be the most important of the lot in terms of long-term effects -- were, AFAICT, made without an serious and well-publicized attempt to consult the community. At least for some those who were even a little bit skeptical in July, suspicion goes up and IAB and RSOC credibility goes down. At least one short-term consequence is that members of the community who should be participating in the discussion wonder if it is all a charade, note the volume of traffic and such things as the dispute about the list on which the discussions are held, and tune out. And others wonder whether that was by design (whether effective or not). For the IETF community, the one problem that may be more serious than the looming deadline of Heather's stepping down in 3 1/2 months is whether the processes to move forward and those running them are perceived as legitimate and credible. I think we are in serious trouble. So, a suggestion: let's take this as far out of the current IAB/RSOC structure as we can and put it, at least for a while, in the hands of someone (or a group of people) for whom the community has a high degree of trust, trust both to behave fairly and to focus on the well-being and future of the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function (rather than being contaminated by how we got here or suspected of trying to push other agendas). There is one obvious person for that role who, based on community reactions in Montreal at IETF 105 and, for that matter, at IETF 102, and that is Heather. So I suggest that you ask (and, if necessary, plead and beg) Heather to extend her commitment to the IETF and the RFC Editor function for an extra six months (or whatever other period she and you think appropriate). That should be done with the clear understanding that her role (at least after December) is to lead and manage the process of figuring out what we do next and getting people in place to do the job. In particular, she should not be responsible for, or actively involved in, either the v3 transition or management of the RFC Production Center. I wouldn't want that role to include selecting her successor(s) either, but I would expect her to manage the process of figuring out how that should be done in consultation with the community. If she needs an advisory committee, let her select and appoint whomever she decides she wants -- there are processes I'd prefer but they all have credibility problems at this stage. The suggestion above deliberately does not include the word "contract". The whole idea behind IASA (carried forward into IASA2) was that their job was to get things like this that the community wants done without dragging the community into the details or, if that is impossible, to explain the problem to the community. In particular, I don't care whether the existing contract is extended with an annex that reflects the paragraph above (and maybe bits of your original languages or suggestions from this thread as needed) or a new contract -- I leave that for Heather (if she is willing to do this at all), the acting IETF LLC ExedDir, and the LLC Board to sort out. Were Heather to come back to the community and suggest that she was willing to do this but the IETF LLC was unwilling to work in good faith, I would expect calls for resignations or worse. If Heather is not willing or able to do this, then I suggest we go the blue ribbon panel route. I can't think of a better mechanism [1] than having the RSOC and IAB appoint that panel, but you/they should see the selection of the membership of that panel and its balance as an opportunity to restore some credibility and no one who has been on either the IAB, IESG, IAOC or LLC Board in the last two or three years should be allowed to be appointed. Given his persistent and constructive efforts to sort this situation out, I'd be very disappointed if Mike St. Johns were not part of it. That panel would have the same responsibilities I'd like to assign to Heather above -- primarily to manage the process of figuring out how we get out of this mess and to fill in on strategy issues if absolutely necessary. To that end, it would be good to have a few people on it with a deep understanding of professional publication strategy (not to be confused with writing a few documents that grew up to be RFCs) and/or long-term intimate involvement with RFC Editor strategies and policies. The RSOC that searched for an selected Heather the first time would be a reasonable place to start looking for those people. Finally, I strongly suggest that the community not hear that we can't do this because the procedures won't allow it. We need to figure out how to make things happen with a maximum of credibility and trust from the community. We have precedent for this sort of thing (and of bringing in outsiders to recent development who are well-known and trusted in the community in the way the POISSON process that led to the current IETF procedure stack and in other situations where we would otherwise basically be stuck with neither side of an issue trusting the other side. Being told that the procedures prevent us from using a creative and credible approach would, in the current climate, certainly cause many members of the community that all of this is about maintaining or expanding leadership body (or personal) control, power, and/or authority. best, john [1] Well, I can, but I'm not aware of a reliable process for consulting Jon Postel, Joyce Reynolds, or Bob Braden.
