Subject: Reflections on last night’s IAB open mic

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:20:55 -0400

First, thanks to everyone who came or stayed for the administrative plenary
in order to contribute, and thanks for the mostly collegial and
constructive tone of the discussion.  After consulting Heather on this, we
would like to continue the discussion about the RFC Series on
[email-masked] and we invite you, whether or not you could
attend last night’s session, to continue the discussion there.  We will
share the minutes from last night’s session to that list as soon as they
are available (they’re produced by the Secretariat by watching and
listening to the video, rather than real-time).

As an initial reflection, it’s clear that there was no consensus, or even
emerging consensus, in the room on whether or how to renew the oversight
structures around the RFC Editor function.  It’s very clear that this
community both values that function and appreciates Heather’s service.
There remain, though, some important questions about whether the role of
the RSOC and the IAB in the overall model needs clarification or requires
more fundamental changes.  There were additional questions raised about
whether updating the relationship between the RSE and RPC would result in a
clearer set of responsibilities, about how to provide for direct input of
stream managers into the oversight process, and how to assess the impact of
change on the broader community of RFC users who are not typically
contributors to one of the streams.  The list discussion on those topics
will likely take some time.

As noted in a previous mail, the RSOC is concurrently asking for comments
from the community on a Statement Of Work (SOW) for a potential Request For
Proposal (RFP).  The comments in the room last night seemed largely
supportive of recruiting an RSE who could assist with the community
consensus process and the RFC format transition, though there were a few
speakers whose contributions suggested a preference for waiting and
different ideas about how to conduct the recruitment process.  The IAB and
RSOC will assess the state of that discussion again when the comment period
for the SOW has ended.

Once again, thanks to each of you for the contributions last night, and we
ask that you continue the discussion on [email-masked].

Regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:52:59 -0400

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 25, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

<snip>

> 
> As noted in a previous mail, the RSOC is concurrently asking for comments from the community on a Statement Of Work (SOW) for a potential Request For Proposal (RFP).  The comments in the room last night seemed largely supportive of recruiting an RSE who could assist with the community consensus process and the RFC format transition, though there were a few speakers whose contributions suggested a preference for waiting and different ideas about how to conduct the recruitment process.  The IAB and RSOC will assess the state of that discussion again when the comment period for the SOW has ended.
> 

My sense of the room was quite different and since we didn’t take a hum I think it’s premature to try to determine consensus.
I feel personally that we should not move forward with a hiring until we address some of the structural concerns

2 cents

- Lucy

> Once again, thanks to each of you for the contributions last night, and we ask that you continue the discussion on [email-masked].
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:01:42 -0400

Hi Lucy,

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:53 PM Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]> wrote:

> from the community on a Statement Of Work (SOW) for a potential Request
> For Proposal (RFP).  The comments in the room last night seemed largely
> My sense of the room was quite different and since we didn’t take a hum I
> think it’s premature to try to determine consensus.
>

Thanks for sharing your impressions.  Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I
wasn't trying to determine consensus at this time, but to indicate the next
time we would try to assess the state of discussion.

I feel personally that we should not move forward with a hiring until we
> address some of the structural concerns
>
> Thanks again for sharing your thoughts,

Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:07:30 +1200

(I'll try to take any detailed discussion to the rfc-interest list as requested, but if we're discussing proto-consensus it probably needs to stay here.)

I'll not comment on the sense of the room until I've had a chance to review the recording, which Meetecho assures me will be posted very soon, but is there a compromise position where (a) we convert the SOW into a job description, recognizing that "RSE" is not a readily measurable function for which a SOW is appropriate and (b) we convert the RFP into a personnel search, with employment/contract aspects to be discussed later with the selected person?

That would allow us to proceed soon without sacrificing flexibility.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 26-Jul-19 06:52, Lucy Lynch wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 25, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Ted Hardie <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>
>> Once again, thanks to each of you for the contributions last night, and we ask that you continue the discussion on [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Ted Hardie
>>

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:20:34 -0400

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 25, 2019, at 3:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Ordering and signaling in the model you propose would be key

My concern here would be how we indicate to credible candidates that things will be better for the next RSE given lessons learned. This list is public so it’s easy to see that there have been issues. I’d hope that we can demonstrate a willingness to work with a new RSE in a way that encourages the best possible candidates to apply. That might look like improved process on our end or a job description that gives s new hire latitude in shaping the next thing. 

- Lucy

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:38:23 -0400

On Jul 25, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> My concern here would be how we indicate to credible candidates that things will be better for the next RSE given lessons learned.

+1

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 20:21:01 -0500

> > My concern here would be how we indicate to credible candidates that things will be better for the next RSE given lessons learned.

"We don't want to have all this egg on our faces again" is a first step.

Nico
--