[rfc-i] community member or not Re: [IAB] RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

Leslie Daigle ldaigle at thinkingcat.com
Fri Aug 2 09:09:13 PDT 2019


Hi,

On 2 Aug 2019, at 11:55, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> Hiya,
>
> On 02/08/2019 16:30, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>>
>>
>> Replying to just one point in this, as I am still trying to chew 
>> through
>> the larger problem:
>>
>>> - unless you're going for the acting RSE approach, please do
>>> not encourage applications from members of the IETF community
>>> as I think we don't want an RFC author for the RSE role but
>>> rather a series editor and those are IMO quite different things
>
> So I think the rest of that bullet is important to keep with the
> first part you quote above:
>
> "(there may be a couple of RFC authors who could be a good RSE,
> but I'd bet there are many more who'd wrongly-think that they
> could be a good RSE, so it'd be good to not have to deal with
> those folks if you can think of a nice way to discourage them:-)"

I understood your point (and largely agree with it :^) ) but I 
deliberately removed it in my quote because I felt it was a distraction 
from the main thing:  your starting statement that the next RSE would 
not be a community member.


>
>> This didn’t fit Jon Postel.  Nor did it fit Bob Braden or Joyce
>> Reynolds.  All were IETF community members.
>
> Sure.
>
>> I could ask if your point is a reflection on the IETF community being
>> less luminary than it used to be.
>
> No idea. I wasn't about 'till about mid-'90's and like most
> IETFers didn't care at all about any of this until much more
> recently. That said, I think I'd bet it was always true that
> the community included quite a few people who'd wrongly-think
> they could be a good RSE and very few who would be.
>
>> But, ISTM that part of the larger problem is that we’re trying to 
>> “hire
>> expertise”, that both understands our universe and brings in some 
>> level
>> of external subject matter experience and expertise, which is good.  
>> But
>> then we, (for we == leadership, at least) treat them like staff, not
>> community.
>
> I don't believe it's accurate to say that "leadership" (if
> you mean every IAB/IESG/LLC-board member) "treat them like
> staff." I do agree that that's a perception that's out there
> that seems to me to be based on a real divergence of opinion
> in the community (and not just "leadership") as to how the
> RSE role (and maybe other roles) ought be defined.

Definitely “and other roles”, but that’s a subject for a different 
list.

Leadership is specifically singled out because that’s who’s making 
the implementation decisions that are making the reality more like 
“staff” than “community”.

It may or may not be reflected more broadly throughout the community:   
ISTM that the real question here is to figure that out, and get 
community consensus on which way we want to go, because there are 
significant consequences either way.

Leslie.

>
> So while it's a bit self-serving for me to say it, it may
> be that thinking of the RSE situation as being nothing more
> than a leadership problem may be mistaken. (Even if I'm
> right there, it of course remains entirely understandable
> and even correct to beat-up on leadership in such cases:-)
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>> I have (many) more thoughts on that theme, but will stop there, for 
>> now,
>> and see what people think.
>>
>> Leslie.
>>
>>
>> On 1 Aug 2019, at 17:04, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> I have some feedback as an individual member of the
>>> community...
>>>
>>> On 15/07/2019 15:25, Sarah B wrote:
>>>> Hello, Attached is the RSE SOW intended for the upcoming RFP. 
>>>> You'll
>>>> find it very much inline with the previous SOW we sent out as part 
>>>> of
>>>> the RFP during the last iteration of this process. The RSOC is
>>>> requesting community feedback, and would like to run a 4 week
>>>> feedback period. That period starts today, July 15, and ends August
>>>> 15, 2019. Please direct your feedback to the RSOC directly.
>>>
>>> Since we did ask after the plenary to use this list, I'll
>>> send to here...
>>>
>>> If the hiring/search process starts now, I think there ought
>>> be some mention that the community are highly likely to be
>>> modifying rfc6635 in the next two years. My read of all the
>>> mails is that it seems to be an almost universally held opinion
>>> that some changes to 6635 are needed and timely, e.g. taking
>>> out the bit that pretends the RSE is somehow day-to-day
>>> "responsible" for the operation of the RPC. Of course there
>>> are very different opinions as to what changes to make but
>>> in any case I think all potential new RSEs should be told
>>> this up front.
>>>
>>> I'm honestly not sure myself if going ahead now and trying to
>>> find a new RSE for 2020-2022 and maybe more is a good or bad
>>> plan. I can see arguments for waiting 'till we're done with
>>> a 6635bis, for going ahead and involving a new RSE in 6635bis
>>> discussion and for trying to find someone to be acting RSE
>>> for a year or so while the 6635bis discussion happens. I'm
>>> also not clear that there's a community consensus on that
>>> question.
>>>
>>> (It'd be great if more people explicitly said which option
>>> they think ought be taken here for this question that needs
>>> an answer within a couple of weeks. IIUC the default will be
>>> to run the process as per 6635 as that's the only reasonable
>>> default I can see in the absence of consensus for something
>>> else.)
>>>
>>> If I were forced to choose between one of the three options
>>> from the para 2 above this, I think I'd very weakly go for
>>> trying to get a new RSE now who is willing to be involved
>>> in the 6635bis work. (My initial preference was for an
>>> acting RSE but very very few of the sensible people I chatted
>>> to about this in Montreal seemed to like that.)
>>>
>>> Other than that, reflecting on some of the other mails, my
>>> personal feedback to RSOC is:
>>>
>>> - please do considering a search committee made up of people
>>> that you hope will be acceptable to those with all shades of
>>> opinion as to the RSE position and the current situation (if
>>> they exist and are gullible enough to say yes to you;-)
>>>
>>> - as previously stated in the threads about RSE-as-employee,
>>> please do not restrict yourself to searching for a new RSE
>>> from locations with some specific (e.g. US-style) employment
>>> law - finding the best person and not trying to pick based
>>> on a preferred contractual arrangement is what I hope you do
>>>
>>> - perhaps consider adding something to the statement of work
>>> (or whatever you publicise) to the effect that the RFC series
>>> has been on the go for 50 years and we'd like it to continue
>>> for some decades more (so long as interesting material keeps
>>> turning up to publish) and that such a long term focus is
>>> part of the RSE role in 6635 and is extremely likely to be
>>> part of the role in future too
>>>
>>> - unless you're going for the acting RSE approach, please do
>>> not encourage applications from members of the IETF community
>>> as I think we don't want an RFC author for the RSE role but
>>> rather a series editor and those are IMO quite different things
>>> (there may be a couple of RFC authors who could be a good RSE,
>>> but I'd bet there are many more who'd wrongly-think that they
>>> could be a good RSE, so it'd be good to not have to deal with
>>> those folks if you can think of a nice way to discourage them:-)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards, Sarah Banks, Chair on behalf of the RSOC
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
ldaigle at thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190802/3b0a0f12/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list