[rfc-i] RSOC name
sbanks at encrypted.net
Mon Aug 19 12:58:25 PDT 2019
Thanks for the clarification. A few things..
Joel was a part of the original RSOC that led to the first search that found Heather. He was a part of the second RSOC that led to the rebid of the contract, per RFC6635. I, and Tony, were also a part of that second RSOC when the contract went out to bid per process, and found Heather. However, when the current RSOC made the decision to reup the contract in December but rebid in in 2 years, Joel was no longer on the RSOC, and there were only 2 members remaining from the previous RSOC when the bid/search went out - myself and Tony. I hope that clarifies that, and I apologize for any confusion. We did not check in with previous RSOC members; the feedback was clear. We, as well as Heather, had raised the issue that only 1 bidder had bid the last time (Heather), and that was concerning. New members of the RSOC felt that perhaps we could find new ways to attract more/additional bidders. I'll point out that I've said this several times now, that the RSOC decided to rebid the contract in efforts to address the concern that we'd previously received only 1 bid.
> On Aug 19, 2019, at 12:08 AM, Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com> wrote:
> As I said, my memory was that part of the reason provided for the reasoning
> behind saying that the RSOC intended to re-bid the contract was a concern
> about the number of bidders on the contract. My assumption is that they did
> some consulting of the institutional knowledge about how the two bidding
> processes were actually performed to determine if that might have been a/the
> major factor in the different number of candidates that were bidding for the
> contract. From the message you sent out it seems that only Joel would have
> that knowledge in his head and thus I was just verifying that he has been
> asked for that knowledge. It may be that there was sufficient knowledge
> written down some place, but extra efforts that might have happened in both
> processes would likely no get written down.
> If I am wrong about the reasoning behind the desire to have rebid the
> contract then the question is not relevant. The question just goes to how
> the institutional knowledge was being used to answer questions.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Banks <sbanks at encrypted.net>
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 8:04 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com>
> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RSOC name
> Joel was on the original search team, and the subsequent second
> team. Of course he was consulted. Joel was a very active member of the RSOC
> :) I feel I am missing something here. I'll ask again - what is the specific
> question being asked here? I'm not sure I fully understand, outside of the
> extremely broad question last posed below, and that's difficult to respond
>> On Aug 18, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com> wrote:
>> I am afraid I do not remember who was on the original search committee
>> any more, but if I understand correctly the following statements are true:
>> 1. Joel would be the only person who was on the original search
>> committee and the RSOC at the time of the last bidding process.
>> 2. There are now three people who are on the committee at the time of
>> the last bidding process who are still on RSOC and that does not include
>> Given that part of the question that was raised on the list was the
>> issue of how many people were bidding, am I correct in assuming that
>> Joel was consulted to get some answers to that question at some point
>> given that he is the only person to have gone through this process twice?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of
>> Sarah Banks
>> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 3:31 PM
>> To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf at elandsys.com>
>> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RSOC name
>> I believe there was access to institutional memory, in that we had
>> Joel on the RSOC the last time we went through this process. Remember,
>> the last time we went through the process, we already had an
>> incumbent. If you have further questions regarding RSOC membership, I
>> encourage you to explore those with the IAB, who appoints the RSOC.
>>> On Aug 18, 2019, at 12:10 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf at elandsys.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Sarah,
>>> At 10:30 AM 18-08-2019, Sarah Banks wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, that's a very broad request. If you can help me
>> understand what you're trying to understand and narrow the focus, that
>> would be helpful.
>>> I was trying to understand whether the institutional memory was
>> and, if that was the case, to access some of it. I explained that a
>> few times but my request did not get through probably because of
>> communication difficulties.
>>> S. Moonesamy
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest