|
Five immediate large items:
0) The requirements for this position
are pretty much indistinguishable from that of the RSE as stated
in previous versions of the SOW. I don't think that makes
sense. If this is simply a "we want to hire some short time to do
the RSE position", then state that rather than using the figleaf
of strategic and tactical. I'm not saying you'll get community
buy-in for that, but at least it would be less obfuscated.
1) Is this a full time position? If
not, then describe the expected workload. From the description,
its a level of effort contract somewhat less than full time.
State that level.
2) The style manual (last bullet) is a
strategic item, not a tactical item. Delete it.
3) Matrix management - seriously?
That's how we got to this situation in the first place.
4) Term - for a tactical contract,
this is pretty long - 1.5 years with the possibility of a year
extension.
Small items:
1) Drop the "Experience as an RFC
editor" bullet in favor of "Familiarity with the RFC series is
desired but not required".
2) The "culture and process" bullet is
also strategic and not tactical. Drop this to just the RFC
process.
3) Travel internationally - state if
this is in addition to the IETF meetings.
Overall comment:
This has the feel to me of a push
towards a more "managed" RFC Editor vs the independent model we've
had over the lifetime of the series - and doing it by small
nibbles and by delay. The RFC++ bof indicated community
displeasure with that direction, and I'm not sure this SOW is
representative of community desires. I'd be happier with this
if the sole and only contract reporting link is from this
contractor to the LLC. The LLC MAY appoint the RSOC for day to
day things, but any contractual discussions OF ANY KIND should be
with the actual organization that holds the contract. From a
community point of view, we have oversight and a direct line of
responsibility from the LLC to the community (with the concomitant
ability of the community to recall or otherwise fail to reappoint
LLC board members) . That is not the case with the RSOC.
With respect to the evolution of the
RFC Series - I haven't seen any clear statement from anyone of the
changes they believe need to be made. So, prior to putting us in
the penalty box for a year and a half, perhaps we could actually
get a statement of interests which would indicate that we need
such a delay in the RFC SE selection process. E.g. a full
formal ID/RFC not random musings in email with enough initial
support that we have the possibility of getting to some sort of
consensus for change if we invest the time.
Later, Mike
On 8/30/2019 12:38 PM, Sarah Banks
wrote:
|
