(I'll try to take any detailed discussion to the rfc-interest list as requested, but if we're discussing proto-consensus it probably needs to stay here.) I'll not comment on the sense of the room until I've had a chance to review the recording, which Meetecho assures me will be posted very soon, but is there a compromise position where (a) we convert the SOW into a job description, recognizing that "RSE" is not a readily measurable function for which a SOW is appropriate and (b) we convert the RFP into a personnel search, with employment/contract aspects to be discussed later with the selected person? That would allow us to proceed soon without sacrificing flexibility. Regards Brian Carpenter On 26-Jul-19 06:52, Lucy Lynch wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 25, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > <snip> > >> >> As noted in a previous mail, the RSOC is concurrently asking for comments from the community on a Statement Of Work (SOW) for a potential Request For Proposal (RFP). The comments in the room last night seemed largely supportive of recruiting an RSE who could assist with the community consensus process and the RFC format transition, though there were a few speakers whose contributions suggested a preference for waiting and different ideas about how to conduct the recruitment process. The IAB and RSOC will assess the state of that discussion again when the comment period for the SOW has ended. >> >> > > My sense of the room was quite different and since we didn’t take a hum I think it’s premature to try to determine consensus. > I feel personally that we should not move forward with a hiring until we address some of the structural concerns > > 2 cents > > - Lucy > > >> Once again, thanks to each of you for the contributions last night, and we ask that you continue the discussion on rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Ted Hardie >>
