Hi Ted,
At 12:08 PM 14-07-2019, Ted Hardie wrote:
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.
I don't remember when the performance review issue was first
identified. Anyway, I would look at it in terms of whether the model
is aligned which what actually happens while excluding the legal aspects [1].
Addressing this along with other issues, should be part of any
update to the RFC Editor
I did a quick comparison of RFC 6635 and
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03. Section 2.1.5 and Section 3.1 are
similar except for minor changes.
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.
One of the alternatives (if I understood correctly) is to have an
overlap to ensure a smooth transition between the current RSE and the
new RSE. That also impacts on whether the larger discussion should
happen now or next year. My preference is to have the larger
discussion now. There would probably have to be a transition plan in
parallel.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. That could be discussed outside a RFC if anyone is interested in it.
