Hiya, I'm also not speaking for the IAB, as you'll see when I don't quite agree with Ted:-) On 03/07/2019 21:12, Ted Hardie wrote: > As I tried to lay out in the message which started the RSE Model thread, I > think there is an underlying structural problem in RFC 6635. It presents > two different views of the RSE and those views have some inherent > conflicts. One of those views is of a senior technical contributor to the > community who is expected to both manage the evolution of the series and > represent the value of the RFC series to others. The other view is of a > contractor whose role is defined in a set of contracts and extensions and > who is overseen by a set of unpaid volunteers. As Mike St. Johns noted, > being a contractor does not mean being a low-level employee; you can have > contractors who are subject matter experts and quite well-valued > contributors to a community effort. But even for those subject matter > experts, there are communications which are addressed to them as a > contractor. I do think there may be structural problems with how 6635 matches today's reality, but I'm not sure the above is one. I fully agree with you that those different aspects (editor vs. contractor, volunteer vs. staff) of the RSE/RSOC relationship are exactly the kinds of thing that can easily create tensions and possibilities for mis-communication. But I'm not convinced that's such a structural problem with 6635. What seems to me a more structural issue with 6635 is that it makes the RSE responsible for the performance of the RPC and I'm not sure if that's still a good plan that has a good mapping to reality. However, I don't know enough about the current reality. (So by "not sure" I really do mean "uncertain," and not that I'm fully convinced of the opposite thing:-) I'd be interested in what Heather and others involved have to say on that topic and more generally on how 6635 maps to today's reality. (I'd be as interested in that being discussed here, on rfc-interest, or off-list if that were needed, though of course noting that I'm asking about how the RFC matches reality and not about any personnel matters so hopefully on-list should work for some list.) Lastly, as Ted said in a different mail, I doubt the community can sort out such issues before an RSE RFP process would be done, so if people had opinions on when, how or if we should engage in topics like that, it'd be good to hear those opinions. IOW, while these are important long term RFC series topics to discuss, it's not clear to me that we could reach consensus on any resulting changes in time for them to affect the planned RFP process. So I'm not sure (same meaning again:-) if we'd be better to try tackle these issues now while folks are thinking about the general topic, or later, when it could be done without the possible time pressure of an RFP process and hopefully after people's understandable concerns about the current undesirable situation have been assuaged. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
