Subject: seeking clarification - closing statement at the IAB open mic.

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 06:26:57 -0700

Ted,

Having had a chance to review the instant replay, I have a question
about your statement.

https://youtu.be/ti2iE0jBL0s?t=9839

    I have a strong belief at
    this point that one of the key risks
    that Heather articulated was that if the
    ball gets dropped during this period of
    transition in the format there may be a
    set of issues that makes it even more
    difficult to bring somebody in
    afterwards as a result of that I think
    the most likely result here even though
    there were very clear articulations for
    why we might want to wait until further
    community discussion occurred that we
    will probably say that having the
    ability to overlap with Heather is
    probably an overriding concern but
    that's the the reflection that we'll go
    to the lists for further discussion

Is this your opinion?

Is it a statement as IAB chair. Is it direction to the RSOC? Is it
representative of IAB consensus?

It is not mentioned in the reflections email.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/?gbt=1&index=7g0pp1chSl1zdZEeG_IVOgJA50g

I interpret that statement in light of the thread:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_Le5BN-GsJA-424DHbcFupgZHAA

I would therefore pose a question.

Are we in your opinion choosing between appointing an interim RSE and
issuing another solicitation based on the current  RFC 6635 model or
some a yet unstated model which has a completion time in this calendar
year?

Can you articulate how we install an RSE by or prior to Singapore such
that overlap with the current RSE is achieved?

Thanks

joel

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:45:29 -0400

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:27 AM Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> Having had a chance to review the instant replay, I have a question about
> your statement.
>
It was the impression I had at the time, based on the points Heather had
made earlier in the evening. There's been continuing discussion since then,
including the points made by Lucy.

> It was none of those.

> issuing another solicitation based on the current  RFC 6635 model or some a
> yet unstated model which has a completion time in this calendar year?
>
I think there are three basic choices or, possibly, two choices with a 2a
and 2b.  The first is to continue the discussion before recruiting a new
RSE.  As Leslie pointed out, that needs to be time bounded, in order to
avoid a long consensus process causing the position to be vacant for some
time.  The second is to issue an RFP on approximately the same time frame
that was already announced.  One option within that (2a) is to make the
statement of work tightly focused on community facilitation and the format
work that is already in hand; the other option (2b) is to use a statement
of work closer to the most recent successful recruitment.  In 2b, the remit
of the RSE to guide evolution of the series would leave the new incumbent
in a role that would allow them to work with the community on developing a
new consensus.  I believe both 2a and 2b are within the RFC 6635 process
bounds.  The discussion on rfc-interest may, of course, indicate other
options or preferences.

Can you articulate how we install an RSE by or prior to Singapore such that
> overlap with the current RSE is achieved?
>
>
>  Note that Heather has kindly offered to be available for a short time
after the end of the current contract, so we may have slightly more time
than the Singapore meeting.  Obviously, if an RSE is selected earlier, we
have a longer potential period of overlap.

All of the above is my individual opinion,

Ted

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:43:04 -0400

Ted,

> On Jul 26, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> ….
> 
> I think there are three basic choices or, possibly, two choices with a 2a and 2b.  The first is to continue the discussion before recruiting a new RSE.  As Leslie pointed out, that needs to be time bounded, in order to avoid a long consensus process causing the position to be vacant for some time.  The second is to issue an RFP on approximately the same time frame that was already announced.  One option within that (2a) is to

As several people have said, “issuing an RFP” is not the right way to hire a new RSE.  It needs to be a targeted search.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:57:26 -0400

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 3:44 PM Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > I think there are three basic choices or, possibly, two choices with a
> 2a and 2b.  The first is to continue the discussion before recruiting a new
> that was already announced.  One option within that (2a) is to
>
> As several people have said, “issuing an RFP” is not the right way to hire
> a new RSE.  It needs to be a targeted search.
>

I'm not sure what you think the difference is here.  "Issuing an RFP"
doesn't mean "throwing it out in the universe and waiting until bids come
in".

--Richard

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:07:26 -0400

Richard,

> On Jul 26, 2019, at 3:57 PM, Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you think the difference is here.  "Issuing an RFP" doesn't mean "throwing it out in the universe and waiting until bids come in”.

I suggest you reread the emails from Brian Carpenter and John Wroclawski to understand the differences.

Bob