Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Way forward and issue list

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:26:29 -0400

(sorry -- posted from wrong address) 

--On Friday, September 25, 2020 09:40 +1200 Jay Daley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> ARAICT, you have read those parts of the discussions
>>> correctly. _However_ this is one of interaction issues.  I
>>> don't know how many others are like me in this regard, but
>>> "how to recruit and hire X" is not a question I choose to
>>> spend time thinking much about, much less commenting on,
>>> before we have figured out whether we want and RSE or RSA
>>> (and probably more than we have today about what those roles
>>> mean).  Phrases like "cart before the horse" come to mind.
>>> Consequently, you've seen no comments on the subject from
>>> me, and making inferences about agreement about either
>>> process may be unjustified.  
>> 
>> That's exactly why I listed it as "secondary". There's little
>> point in debating it in a vacuum.
> 
> My point was that it isn't even a secondary issue - it's
> not an issue at all afaict.

I'm not sure whether Brian's definition of "secondary" and mine
are the same, which is why I keep saying "intertwined",
"interconnected", and "mutually dependent", although I I believe
we agree that anything that helps us sequence our consideration
of these issues is a good idea and that this one comes after
deciding among RS* models.  But "not an issue at all" is going
too far for at least two reasons.  One is that people who have
been ignoring the "how we recruit and hire" question entirely
until we after the "RSE vs RSA" decision is made might then
review the plans for the chosen position and raise issues that
have not yet been identified, much less discussed.  The other is
that once that decision is made and we have agreed-upon scope
and job description statements, we review the
recruitment/selection plan and discover that the number of
people who would meet the requirements and be willing to apply
or or take the position would be somewhat more rare than the
typical unicorn or flying pig.  We would then have to figure out
something else, possibly revisiting already-closed decisions.
I think (and hope) the latter scenario is unlikely but not
unlikely enough to say "not an issue at all".

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:30:57 +1200

On 25-Sep-20 10:26, John C Klensin wrote:
> deciding among RS* models.

My mental model was that the "secondary" issues could not usefully
been resolved until after some or all of the "primary" issues
were already settled. That's much easier than "mutually dependent"
cases.

> But "not an issue at all" is going
> typical unicorn or flying pig.  

Certainly, but the question of whether the job is doable and
whether candidates exist is separable from defining who sits
in the search committee (IMHO).

   Brian

> We would then have to figure out
> unlikely enough to say "not an issue at all".> 
>     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 20:47:24 -0400

--On Friday, September 25, 2020 12:30 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>>> (and probably more than we have today about what those
>>>>> roles mean).  Phrases like "cart before the horse" come to
>>>>> mind. Consequently, you've seen no comments on the subject
>>>>> from me, and making inferences about agreement about either
>>>> That's exactly why I listed it as "secondary". There's
>>>> little point in debating it in a vacuum.
>>> 
>> I'm not sure whether Brian's definition of "secondary" and
>> mine are the same, which is why I keep saying "intertwined",
>> "interconnected", and "mutually dependent", although I I
>> believe we agree that anything that helps us sequence our
>> consideration of these issues is a good idea and that this
>> one comes after deciding among RS* models.
> 
> My mental model was that the "secondary" issues could not
> usefully been resolved until after some or all of the
> "primary" issues were already settled. That's much easier than
> "mutually dependent" cases.

Wfm, with the understanding that it is possible to reopen the
primary/settled ones if the secondary ones behind them lead us
into dead ends.

>> have not yet been identified, much less discussed.  The other
>> is that once that decision is made and we have agreed-upon
>> scope and job description statements, we review the

Yes.  Who sits in the search committee is unrelated to whether
the job is doable given that candidates exist.  My point is (i)
that this group can, at best, reach a working hypothesis about
the existence of people who would meet the requirements and (ii)
even if potential candidates exist, the composition of the
search committee might determine whether or not they can be
found (and convinced to become candidates).

    john

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:00:43 -0700

> found (and convinced to become candidates).

If we define the role in such a way that we end up needing a wild rara
avis chase, then we probably are doing it wrong. There is a practical
aspect there, that we should neither not define a role that we cannot
recruit.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 08:18:28 +0200

> found (and convinced to become candidates).

… and even more so whether the job being carved out for them is a meaningful one.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:22:51 -0400

> … and even more so whether the job being carved out for them

I was assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that both the RSE and the
RSA model, however we define the details, would be a
sufficiently high-level position, requiring significant
professional skills, that anyone would would accept a
non-meaningful job would be someone we don't want.

--On Thursday, September 24, 2020 23:00 -0700 Christian Huitema
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> If we define the role in such a way that we end up needing a
> wild rara avis chase, then we probably are doing it wrong.
> There is a practical aspect there, that we should neither not
> define a role that we cannot recruit.

But that takes us back to what I believe is the root of our
problems.  Few active IETF participants are expert in the fields
in which we would expect those people to have expertise.   Not
only does "not expert" mean a list of technical skills, it
includes enough contacts and experience to know who might be
available and what would entice them to come work with the IETF
community or to want to accept a position under an IETF LLC
contract.  Even when we went through the process that recruited
Heather, we contacted people who seemed to have the right
qualifications who didn't want anything to do with us.  So,
unless we set the requirements at, e.g., "was author on at least
one RFC" and/or "published an article related to networking
technology somewhere", we may not know whether we can actually
recruit for a role we define until we try it.

   john