2019-07-25-rsoc-minutes
slides-interim-2022-rfcedprog-09-sessa-2019-07-25-rsoc-minutes-00

RSOC Session
July 25, 2019

Attendees: Sarah, Peter, Portia, Christian, Mark, Adam, Tony

1. How can we improve communications
- Between the RSOC and IAB / IESG / IETF Chair
- Also with the community
- IAB members saying IAB doesn't want to micromanage the RSOC
- A perception that "RSOC doesn't communicate with IAB" - noted as strange,
since there are 2 IAB members that have sat on the RSOC for quite some time. -
Previously the ISE was on the RSOC, why not now? - Would we benefit from having
all of the stream managers on the RSOC?
        - Allow them to sit, or designate someone in their place, or abstain
        - AI: Sarah to follow up on this
- Onboarding of RSOC members has been a challenge
        - The current RSOC expected the new incoming IAB members to understand
        what the RSOC does and have a general understanding of where we were
        currently at, which didn't happen. The IAB members were learning
        everything for the first time - AI: Look at an on boarding process for
        new RSOC members. - FAQs about how things work, SLA, division of
        responsibilities, etc - Can this sit on a wiki somewhere? AI: Sarah to
        see if the RSOC can have a page off of the IAB wiki and put this info
        there.
- RSOC members aren't identifiable, and don't have dots on their badges -
should they?

2. Exec session
- Some folks have voiced concern about executive sessions and how they're being
used - There was some discussion as to whether or not that concern is about
RSOC exec session, IAB exec session, or both - Exec session should be used for
personnel issues

3. Transition
- RPC has concerns about not having an RSE after Heather's tenure ends
- Sarah discussed with RPC (Sandy/Alice) that the RSOC would be available to
help; this is a unique situation - Let's encourage more two-way communication
between the RSOC and RPC
        - RPC team members should be welcome to participate as non-voting
        members in RSOC meetings. We've done this before, usually once a year
        at face to face meetings. - Should we talk too Heather about this?
        Sarah indicated she has, and Heather was fine with it - AI: Sarah will
        confirm that Heather is OK with inviting the RPC to all of our face to
        face meetings

4. RSE Recruitment / Future
- It's probably the IAB's responsibility to call consensus here. It's not the
RSOCs. - If the IAB decides to follow some other process, we might want to
provide input - Many folks in the community think we should run the RFP process
- Part of the role might be similar to what Olaf did as the ARSE Job
description is the same because it's about figuring out the future of the RFC
Series Tony: Three key roles to consider: 1. Manage the RPC and keep that
relationship healthy 2. The format work needs to be finished successfully 3.
Work on the future of the series (archiving work, etc) Portia: - Let's not
forget that this is a person, not just a role - the community needs to figure
out what it wants Adam: - Heather has a great deal of institutional knowledge -
don't want to lose that - but we're never going to find the perfect candidate!
Mark: - would this current role have a reduced scope
  - e.g., production manager or editing team lead
  - not "interim RSE"
Christian/Peter...
- concern about recruiting someone temporary; not a great career move
Sarah...
- can we interview Heather to learn more about her knowledge and experience?
Christian...
- we need someone to manage the production process
consensus: we don't think we can have someone on board before the end of
December

A proposal:
- Have someone fill a role, temporarily, with the goal of fulfilling the
tactical aspects of the current RSE job: 1. Working with the RPC, managing that
relationship, being their day to day contact, as Heather does today 2. Manage
the transition to the new format work, including ramp up and roll out of
production tools - This role is explicitly NOT called an interim RSE, or
temporary RSE, but something else, so that it's clear that this role is meant
to serve the function of keeping the day to day tactical functions moving while
the community figures out what it wants to do, and takes those steps. Others
have pointed out that the original RSE discussion took 1.5-2 years to complete
and execute; we'd want to time box this role, for clear expectations here. We
might be best served if someone internal to IETF fulfills this role, but aren't
limited to it. We may allow this person to be part of the "what does the
community want the RSE to be and where do we go from here" discussion, but we
wouldn't require it.

5. Do we run the process or not?
- Is this an RFC6635 process or not?
- It seems like it's not, since this situation isn't covered by the RFC.
- Need to evolve a process and get input from the community
- It might look a lot like RFC6635, but with adjustments