Hi,
I'm going to start with Richard's first comment, and then come back to a couple of other comments, and then give my own comments on the "experience required" bullets:
On 16-Jul-19 06:02, Richard Barnes wrote:
...
> Overall, this document seems odd for an SOW. The point of an SOW is to state what the contractor must do in order to fulfill their end of the contract.
Of course it's odd, because the concept of a "statement of work" with specific deliverables is off target for a job such as the RSE. I think that's part of the broader discussion we need to have, but for now we have to stick to the current model, which means an SOW.
On 16-Jul-19 04:39, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> I don't think its a good idea to include "experience as an RFC author"
>
> Strongly agree. We want a good technical copy-editor, which strikes almost all RFC authors from consideration, IMO.
I want to repeat what the current RSE said. The job is not that of a copy-editor, nor that of a technical editor (which are both well-defined job descriptions). It's much closer to the job of a commissioning editor in a publishing house, but even that isn't correct.
Experience as an RFC author is largely irrelevant, IMHO. Understanding what the IETF and the IRTF do, what other SDOs do, and even what academic journals do, is much more to the point.
On 16-Jul-19 05:34, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 7/15/19 11:15 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
>
>> I don't think its a good idea to include "experience as an RFC author"
>> as a desired skill. Including that requirement will skew the selection
>> towards the usual suspects and Recruiting the next RSE from within the
>> community should imo not be a high priority for us.
>
> I emphatically disagree. Why should IETF entrust the editing of its
> work product to someone who might not understand IETF's mission or share
> its values?
We shouldn't. But firstly, it's the Production Center that actually does the technical and copy editing, and secondly, writing an RFC is not a precondition for understanding the IETF.
My bottom line:
"* Significant editorial and publishing experience desired."
That understates the case. I think our experience with Heather has shown that this isn't just desirable, it's essential. Try:
* Significant senior editorial and publishing experience required.
"* Familiarity with a wide range of Internet technologies."
That seems parochial, and there also seems to be a missing aspect. Try:
* Familiarity with Internet technologies and technical standards.
"* Experience as an RFC author desired."
On balance I'd delete that. Possibly replace it with:
* Experience with standards publication desired.
Regards
Brian
