Hi SM,
Thanks for your comment. You are correct that the SOW does contain this text: "Section 2.1.5 (Workload) of RFC6635 is not applicable to
this Statement of Work." and that the RSOC does not conduct a yearly performance review as called for in section 3.1 of 6635. This latter, as you may recall, is because ISOC's human resources folks pointed out that this was how you reviewed employees, rather than the output of a contract. The text cited above also discusses the position in terms of employee hours rather than output.
Addressing this along with other issues, should be part of any update to the RFC Editor model. A key question now is whether we conduct the hiring according to a slightly modified SOW and have the new incumbent participate in the larger discussion or conduct the discussion prior to recruiting a new RSE. The first strategy seems to be permitted by RFC 6635 under the general rubric of the RSE's role in evolving the series. The second is also possible, but the result will likely be that there is no overlap between a new incumbent and Heather.
regards,
Ted
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 7:44 AM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ted,
At 12:02 PM 03-07-2019, Ted Hardie wrote:
The following is one of the steps in the proposed process:
>3) After the RSOC finalizes the SOW, it notifies the IAB, which
>requests the IETF LLC issue an RFP.
>
>
>Note: this is not an approval step, just the mechanics of who has
>the token to turn this crank.
Why are such mechanics needed?
The process is something for the different committees or entities to
figure out. The statement of work from 2016 overrides Section 2.1.5
of RFC 6635. This will be the second time that the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB) is unable to follow what is written in the
RFC which it approved. Although it produced a less than satisfactory
outcome, the IAB and the RFC Series Oversight Committee is still
proceeding with it. That does not look like a good idea .
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
