Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposal for RSCE recruitment committee and process

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 12:43:52 +1300

An update on this.

> On 1/02/2022, at 2:50 PM, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> In line with Peter’s proposed text [1], here is my proposal for the RSCE selection committee and recruitment process, which I would like community feedback on.  I realise that things have not been fully settled but this recruitment is going to take some time and the sooner we can start the better.  If this is too soon then please let me know.
> 
> # Rationale
> 
> 1.  The RSCE role is very different from the previous RSE role and for the recruitment to be a success it is critical that the committee recruits to the new RSCE role as defined.  It would be problematic if anyone on the committee was not clear about the new role and was inadvertently targeting the old role.  The committee members therefore need detailed knowledge of the new role, in all its subtleties.
> 
> 2.  The committee needs detailed knowledge of the working environment in which the new RSCE will operate in order to assess fit and answer questions.  This environment includes the RPC, IETF community, IETF community leadership and non-IETF RFC community (as such as it exists and we have knowledge of it).
> 
> 3.  The committee needs good knowledge of the contracting options available to ensure that these are all properly considered.
> 
> 
> #  Composition
> 
> I have approached all of the following and they have agreed to provide their time and expertise to this process.  They all have detailed knowledge of the new role.
> 
> - Jay Daley, IETF Executive Director (me), recruitment and contracting expertise
> - Sandy Ginoza, RPC Director, detailed knowledge of the working environment
> - John Levine, Temporary RFC Series PM, detailed knowledge of the working environment
> - Peter Saint-Andre, RSOC chair and editor of new model, detailed knowledge of new model and the working environment
> - Mike St Johns, community member, detailed knowledge of new model, contracting expertise
> 
> 
> # Process
> 
> a.  Get community feedback on all of this and adjust as needed
> b.  In lieu of the RSAB get feedback from the RSOC, IAB and IESG once community feedback incorporated

I consulted with the stream managers and the IAB recommended that I add another community member to the committee, which I have now done as Martin Durst has agreed to join the committee.

> c.  Committee meets to identify community members for the recruiters to meet with as part of their research and to provide advice to recruiters on where to look

The committee is now discussing this, casting a wide net, and considering mechanisms by which the recruiters and community can engage.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Jay

> d.  Recruiter meets community members and then does its stuff
> e.  Recruitment process
> f.   Committee presents LLC board with one or more recommended candidates and contracting options for final decision.
> 
> 
> [1]  https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/151
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [email-masked]
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:35:54 -0500

--On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:43 +1300 Jay Daley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> In line with Peter's proposed text [1], here is my proposal
>> for the RSCE selection committee and recruitment process,
>> which I would like community feedback on.  I realise that
>> things have not been fully settled but this recruitment is
>> going to take some time and the sooner we can start the
>> better.  If this is too soon then please let me know.
>> 
>> # Rationale
>> 
>> 1.  The RSCE role is very different from the previous RSE
>> role and for the recruitment to be a success it is critical
>> that the committee recruits to the new RSCE role as defined.
>> It would be problematic if anyone on the committee was not
>> clear about the new role and was inadvertently targeting the
>> old role.  The committee members therefore need detailed
>> knowledge of the new role, in all its subtleties.

>> 2.  The committee needs detailed knowledge of the working
>> environment in which the new RSCE will operate in order to
>> assess fit and answer questions.  This environment includes
>> the RPC, IETF community, IETF community leadership and
>> non-IETF RFC community (as such as it exists and we have
>> knowledge of it).

>>...

Jay,

With the understanding that I'm fine with the people listed, I
have a small issue with a role that might be missing, one that
interacts with the characterization above.   Whether
intentionally or not, there has seemed to be an assumption that
(to exaggerate a bit for emphasis) anyone who participated in
previous selection processes for the RSE and/or definitions of
that role are somehow so irreversibly contaminated or seriously
brain-damaged by those involvements to be stuck on trying to
resurrect that old role (or, as you put it, targeting that
role).  With the understanding that I am _not_ looking for an
appointment with the committee, several of those who were
involved in those previous selections have been very active in
the Program effort, including contributing to the definition of
the new role. 

None of that would make much difference were it not for one
other aspect of the issue.  The qualifications you list are
primarily knowledge of the working environment (presumably past
and present since no one has experience with the actual
operation of the new model), contracting and (general)
recruitment expertise, and the details of the new model.  All
that is fine and, if I were making a list, those things would be
on it.  However, what is missing is in-depth understanding of
the more fundamental and philosophical decisions about how RFCs
are structured and published.  At least as I understand it, it
was never an agreed goal of this program to fundamentally change
those things, only to significantly change the organizational
and decision-making structure that supports and drives the
Series.  Sandy knows much of that from observation and
participation in more recent versions of that history.  But,
perhaps by a side effect of what appears to be assuming that
irreversible contamination, you have no one one your list who
knows that history.  Not only is there no one who was involved
in the prior RSE (or earlier) selection processes, but AFAICT,
there is no one who was on the RSOC before the meltdown(s)
started, no one who has been on the RSE's advisory (as distinct
from "oversight") body or its predecessors, and no one who has
served on the ISE's editorial board.

Eliminating those people may also reduce the committee's
knowledge of the "non-IETF RFC community".   In particular, it
also appears that, when you mention contracting, you are focused
on options available to the IETF LLC and not the rather
different sets of issues faced by people who use RFCs as part of
their procurement processes.   Those who use the RFCs in
procurement may not be a "community" in any real sense, but they
are vitally important to the relevancy of the RFC Series and,
indeed, the IETF.

It might even be worth mentioning that at least one of the
people who was interviewed during the cycle in which Heather was
selected would have been much more qualified for the current
definition of the RSCE role than they were for the RSE one --
the latter was seen as having some requirements that the
candidate didn't satisfy but that are now largely or completely
irrelevant.  Certainly the roles are very different, but that
does not make the candidate pools disjoint.

In addition, our definition of "detailed" may differ but I don't
think there is _anyone_ who has "detailed knowledge of the new
role, in all its subtleties".   Substitute "opinions" for
"knowledge" and I'd agree, but it is knowledge that you asked
for and that, IMO, is needed.  From observation of the
discussion on this list, I believe that some people expect the
RSCE to be someone who brings some expertise to the table but
whose role is largely passive, more or less speaking only when
spoken to.  Others see the need for a more active role including
noticing current or potential problems and bringing them to the
attention of the RSWG, RSAB, or other actors as appropriate and
before they evolve into crises.  I think the community would be
better served by having both perspectives on the role (and/or
perspectives in between) represented on the committee rather
than having only one perspective because of the choices of
committee members (maybe both perspectives are adequately
represented on your list but it is not obvious and does not
appear in the criteria you list).   The current version of the
document does say (Section 5, second bullet) "Identify problems
with the RFC publication process..." which moves things a bit in
the second direction.  It does not say, for example, "Identify
and alert people to potential future problems facing the Series"
but that is not excluded either: the text only talks about
"primary responsibilities" and, further on, "might provide
guidance [that] could include...".  I don't recall any consensus
that would eliminate the possibility of the RSCE taking a
longer-term view or offering advice proactively; only the
possibilities of the RSCE having any individual authority or
making unilateral decisions is excluded.  

I think the text is ok and that the RSAB and RSWG will have to
do a certain amount of sorting out of roles (the RSCE one and
many others) as experience with the new model accumulates.  But
it seems to me that it could be important to have one or more
people on the selection committee with that longer-term
perspective on Series philosophy so that candidates who would be
good at the more proactive role are not systematically excluded.
FWIW, that difference in skills should be reflected in the
instructions given the recruiters.
 
A different way to read some of your comments and criteria --and
we have talked about this before-- is they can be interpreted as
looking for a committee with completely shared views about roles
and responsibilities.  That would certainly make things easier.
It would also not be representative of the community (or even
the consensus of this Program) with regard to questions about
the details of roles.  Fortunately from my point of view, the
committee members you listed are not going to give you that
level of homogeneity.  I'm suggesting that, because the
advantages of complete homogeneity have been abandoned, it would
be an advantage to broaden things even a bit further and that it
would have no downside ... again unless there is consensus about
the brain-damage hypothesis about people with prior experience
with the selection process and/or long-term series strategy.
 
>...

   best,
      john

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 10:32:30 +1300

John

> On 12/03/2022, at 9:35 AM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> role).

There is no such assumption at all.  I have not looked at who participated in the previous selection, though a few have recently been identified to me, nor did that figure in the selection in any way at all.  I am confident that anyone who participated in the previous selection could also be an excellent choice for this one if they met the criteria above.  

>  With the understanding that I am _not_ looking for an
> Series.

As we have seen from conversations on this list, when an attempt was made to codify the "more fundamental and philosophical decisions" there was considerable pushback and only a small set reached consensus.  If I recall correctly, when I attempted to list a set of de facto decisions that appeared to apply, you were very uncomfortable with even that approach.  Given that, I do not think it would be at all appropriate for me to try and circumvent this group by finding a route for those non-consensus items to be reintroduced into the recruitment process as anything other than data points.  

>  Sandy knows much of that from observation and

This is not intentional - it is partly an artefact of the criteria and because I did not go back through that history when reaching out to people. 

To reiterate what I have said before - we have a new structure for the RFC Editor function and we have a new RSCE role, both of which have been developed in an  open community process and which have consensus.  While the history and past contributions are very much valued, it would be improper if that overrode the new structure.

> does not make the candidate pools disjoint.

Marvellous.  Please let me know their name offlist.

> making unilateral decisions is excluded.  

This is a non-problem.  Not only has there not been any consensus that we should have a passive RSCE, I have not seen anyone at all argue for a passive RSCE.  In fact, when that topic has come up there has been strong unanimity that the RSCE should be free to offer whatever advice they see fit as proactively as they wish.

> level of homogeneity.

Excellent.

>  I'm suggesting that, because the

Thanks.  As I’ve explained a couple of times before, step 1 of the recruitment is for the recruiters to speak to a wide range of community participants to get their views on the candidates they should seek out and assess.

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 20:52:49 -0500

Jay,

Thanks for the detailed and careful response.  One observation,
which is that, by not addressing those controversial and
non-consensus items, you are not avoiding circumventing anything
but, instead, are making decisions.  There is nothing wrong with
your doing that -- the specification is very clear that you get
to make these decisions any way that you think appropriate --
but, in your terms, all I was really looking for was to get the
"data points" better represented.  

Good luck with the process.
   john

--On Saturday, March 12, 2022 10:32 +1300 Jay Daley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> intentionally or not, there has seemed to be an assumption
>> that (to exaggerate a bit for emphasis) anyone who
>> participated in previous selection processes for the RSE
>> and/or definitions of that role are somehow so irreversibly
>> contaminated or seriously brain-damaged by those involvements
>> to be stuck on trying to resurrect that old role (or, as you
>> put it, targeting that role).
> 
> There is no such assumption at all.  I have not looked at who
> participated in the previous selection, though a few have
> recently been identified to me, nor did that figure in the
> selection in any way at all.  I am confident that anyone who
> participated in the previous selection could also be an
> excellent choice for this one if they met the criteria above.  
> 
>> the Program effort, including contributing to the definition
>> of the new role. 
>> 
>> primarily knowledge of the working environment (presumably
>> past and present since no one has experience with the actual
>> that is fine and, if I were making a list, those things would
>> be on it.  However, what is missing is in-depth understanding
>> of the more fundamental and philosophical decisions about how
>> RFCs are structured and published. At least as I understand
>> it, it was never an agreed goal of this program to
>> fundamentally change those things, only to significantly
>> change the organizational and decision-making structure that
>> supports and drives the Series.
> 
> As we have seen from conversations on this list, when an
> attempt was made to codify the "more fundamental and
> philosophical decisions" there was considerable pushback and
> only a small set reached consensus.  If I recall correctly,
> when I attempted to list a set of de facto decisions that
> appeared to apply, you were very uncomfortable with even that
> approach.  Given that, I do not think it would be at all
> appropriate for me to try and circumvent this group by finding
> a route for those non-consensus items to be reintroduced into
> the recruitment process as anything other than data points.  
> 
>> started, no one who has been on the RSE's advisory (as
>> distinct from "oversight") body or its predecessors, and no
>> one who has served on the ISE's editorial board.
> 
> This is not intentional - it is partly an artefact of the
> criteria and because I did not go back through that history
> when reaching out to people. 
> 
> To reiterate what I have said before - we have a new structure
> for the RFC Editor function and we have a new RSCE role, both
> of which have been developed in an  open community process and
> which have consensus.  While the history and past
> contributions are very much valued, it would be improper if
> that overrode the new structure.
> 
>> 
>> also appears that, when you mention contracting, you are
>> focused on options available to the IETF LLC and not the
>> rather different sets of issues faced by people who use RFCs
>> as part of their procurement processes.   Those who use the
>> RFCs in procurement may not be a "community" in any real
>> sense, but they are vitally important to the relevancy of the
>> RFC Series and, indeed, the IETF.
>> 
>> people who was interviewed during the cycle in which Heather
>> was selected would have been much more qualified for the
>> current definition of the RSCE role than they were for the
>> RSE one -- the latter was seen as having some requirements
>> that the candidate didn't satisfy but that are now largely or
>> completely irrelevant.  Certainly the roles are very
>> different, but that does not make the candidate pools
>> disjoint.
> 
>> In addition, our definition of "detailed" may differ but I
>> don't think there is _anyone_ who has "detailed knowledge of
>> the new role, in all its subtleties".   Substitute "opinions"
>> for "knowledge" and I'd agree, but it is knowledge that you
>> asked for and that, IMO, is needed.  From observation of the
>> spoken to.  Others see the need for a more active role
>> including noticing current or potential problems and bringing
>> them to the attention of the RSWG, RSAB, or other actors as
>> appropriate and before they evolve into crises.  I think the
>> community would be better served by having both perspectives
>> on the role (and/or perspectives in between) represented on
>> the committee rather than having only one perspective because
>> of the choices of committee members (maybe both perspectives
>> are adequately represented on your list but it is not obvious
>> and does not appear in the criteria you list).   The current
>> version of the document does say (Section 5, second bullet)
>> "Identify problems with the RFC publication process..." which
>> moves things a bit in the second direction.  It does not say,
>> for example, "Identify and alert people to potential future
>> problems facing the Series" but that is not excluded either:
>> the text only talks about "primary responsibilities" and,
>> further on, "might provide guidance [that] could include...".
>> I don't recall any consensus that would eliminate the
>> possibility of the RSCE taking a longer-term view or offering
>> advice proactively; only the possibilities of the RSCE having
>> any individual authority or making unilateral decisions is
>> excluded.  
> 
> This is a non-problem.  Not only has there not been any
> consensus that we should have a passive RSCE, I have not seen
> anyone at all argue for a passive RSCE.  In fact, when that
> topic has come up there has been strong unanimity that the
> RSCE should be free to offer whatever advice they see fit as
> proactively as they wish.
> 
>> 
>> many others) as experience with the new model accumulates.
>> But it seems to me that it could be important to have one or
>> more people on the selection committee with that longer-term
>> perspective on Series philosophy so that candidates who would
>> be good at the more proactive role are not systematically
>> excluded. FWIW, that difference in skills should be reflected
>> in the instructions given the recruiters.
>> 
>> A different way to read some of your comments and criteria
>> --and we have talked about this before-- is they can be
>> interpreted as looking for a committee with completely shared
>> views about roles and responsibilities.  That would certainly
>> make things easier. It would also not be representative of
>> the community (or even the consensus of this Program) with
>> regard to questions about the details of roles.  Fortunately
>> from my point of view, the committee members you listed are
>> not going to give you that level of homogeneity.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
>> advantages of complete homogeneity have been abandoned, it
>> would be an advantage to broaden things even a bit further
>> and that it would have no downside ... again unless there is
>> consensus about the brain-damage hypothesis about people with
>> prior experience with the selection process and/or long-term
>> series strategy.
> 
> Thanks.  As I've explained a couple of times before, step 1
> of the recruitment is for the recruiters to speak to a wide
> range of community participants to get their views on the
> candidates they should seek out and assess.
> 
> Jay
> 
>> 
>>> ...
>> 
>>   best,
>>      john
>> 
>> --