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