Hi Mike, Please see inline.
On 8/30/2019 3:39 PM, Sarah Banks
wrote:
Hi Mike,
Some
thoughts, inline. Speaking for myself. SB//
Not really. Seriously - you're the author of the SOW with the
RSOC so this is direct commentary on your work product.
SB// I'm honestly perplexed by this response. I am speaking for myself and my comments are not representing RSOC consensus, which I would relay with the RSOC chair hat on. I also believe it's perfectly permissible for me to have a voice without my chair hat on. I honestly expect you to know this, which makes me think there's something else at play here, and we have a disconnect; am I missing something?
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.
SB// The thought here was as intended; specifically on
tactical, and nothing more. It IS focused on what the
current RSE does tactically - I'm not sure how we change
that until the community has a conversation about the
role. I'm all ears and open to suggestions, though!
I don't think you've actually thought through the tactical items
well enough for the community to give you a thumbs up or down. So some additional questions: a) Does this contract end with the RSE contract is let?
The SOW clearly calls for a firm initial term. I believe I've also followed up since stating there might be overlap. Help me understand where the confusion is here? Have I overlooked something? b) Does the RSE regain most of the tactical stuff?
Your question assumes outcome of the community process. I have no idea what that outcome is. This is a TEMPORARY role. There's nothing to "take" away from the next RSE, should we the community choose to continue to have one. I'm being somewhat obtuse on purpose - the SOW is NOT a comment on what happens with the next RSE or the process or any of that - the SOW covers the specific work items laid out, with the ability to adjust them by mutual consent should something arise, and allow RFCs to continue flowing while we, the community, figure out what we want to do. c) If so, there's an end product that needs to be requested -
the hand-over documentation.
This might be a reasonable addition to add to the SOW. Let's see what others think. d) Does acting as the tactical person prevent you from
bidding on the RSE? If not, why not? [E.g. insider knowledge vs
fairness of the bid process]
The SOW doesn't take a position on this, and IMHO, that's a good thing. We want the best person for the job. Any incumbent would have "insider knowledge", in that they know how the process works, and are already sitting in the job. I don't think this is our biggest problem to solve, or a huge problem in and of itself. That's my opinion. If the rest of the community feels differently they can say so and we'll discuss. e) Can you think of any of these items to eliminate as "can
wait for an RSE"? If not, then see my original question (0).
I don't understand what the "items to eliminate" are? The SOW is specific in it's 2 goals, which I've already stated again in this email. They cannot wait, hence the SOW.
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.
SB// The RSOC in years past has specifically stayed out
of the "how long does it take to do the job" and the "this
is a 32-hour-a-week" job. I'd defer this to the LLC; if
the person they're hiring is a contractor I'm not sure
this matters, since they're bidding on the total amount of
work (that's been the thought) versus the employee who
clearly needs to understand if this is a part time or full
time job.
I can't see how this could be let as a firm fixed price contract
or even a piece work or deliverable task contract. I think this
is an LOE contract with meta deliverables. You're going to want
some of this persons time to be committed, and you're going to
want to tell them up front what that time commitment is. I think
figuring out what that LOE is is squarely in the wheelhouse of the
SOW authors.
Your opinion is noted, thank you.
<snip>
SB// The goal is to have the conversation as a group,
and figure out what to do. if we don't want a managed RFC
Editor, but the independent model that folks believe we
should have, then as a community we should say that, and
figure out how to instrument what we want. Personally, I
like the spirit of what was described to me starting with
Postel, and having some independence from being told what
to do blindly with the ability to push back doesn't seem
to be a bad thing. But that's my personal thought, and as
an RSOC it's not our current purview to tell the community
what to do.
I agree, however, the RSOC seems to have taken it as a purview to
diminish the independence of the RSE from previous levels. If the
RSOC (and for that matter) would take a look at what it was fall
of 2016 vs how its been behaving vis a vis the RSE since that
point in time, I'd be much happier with your statement that you
don't tell the community what to do.
Mike, what exactly do you want? Honestly, what is it? I believe the RSOC made a mistake. We publicly and very specifically said that we made the mistake, owned it, and apologized. I am incapable of undoing that mistake, it is what it is. That said, I believe the RSOC has been very thoughtful in it's actions since, starting with the feedback we've received, drafting a new SOW, and IMO clearly stating that the SOW is specifically a temporary position that allows us to keep RFC's flowing while the community figures out "what's next". I'm at a loss to understand how we're telling the community what to do.
This is starting to feel a little more personal, and while I'm happy to have this conversation with you, I'm no longer willing to do it on a public list. I believe it would be more productive to do 1 on 1, and I'm happy to meet and talk whenever is convenient for you. I want your opinion and your feedback. You've been here a very long time, and have a perspective that's steeped in an experience that I'm not sure everyone else understands. I value that, and I'm not trying to stifle that, but I am trying to keep it productive for both of us.
We're trying to strike a balance between the process
we have, which keeps our contractors moving and documents
flowing, and allowing the community to do its thing. This
position "reporting" to the LLC makes little sense to me -
1. that's not the current process we have (and if you
don't like it, speak up and change it, Ted's outlined how
we might proceed to doing that) and 2. The LLC really
isn't equipped to handle it either.
See my note to Stephen. Basically, I think it may be OK to have
the RSOC operate as a COTR under the purview of the LLC with no
ability to tell the RSE what to do, but instead acts as an advisor
to the LLC for contract issues. That gives whoever gets hired one
and only one point of control to deal with. I'd also suggest
that the RSOC no longer do the "we're talking about contracts in
executive session" stuff and instead call for community input
every couple of years or so and write a public report detailing
pros and cons based on that input (and specifically no anonymous
input) as the basis for the LLC to make its decisions. 6635 is
not controlling on the LLC as they are the fiduciaries - but the
community might not like that interpretation. They could adopt
6635 as an operating instruction by vote of the board, but I don't
see that as having taken place.
That's your point of view, *a* point of view, and I think it's reasonable for this to be a part of the conversation that we have as a community to decide how we want things to change. If we agree as a community on it then I suppose bigger changes are coming. But I'll point out that it's outside the purview of this SOW.
The RSOC seems to be the reasonable choice given the
situation we find ourselves in, and again, this is a 1.5
year contract with clearly described goals.
"clearly described goals" is overstating it I would say. Sorry. Mike
There's a saying I have on my team - don't come to me with problems, come with solutions. It's perfectly acceptable to not agree with what I said, If you feel it's not "clearly described goals" then please, propose text for the rest of us to review and agree upon that leaves you comfortable with the goals being clearly stated. I'm happy to help review.
Thanks, Sarah
We'll have the conversation to change (or not) - in the
grand scheme of things, this doesn't seem to be an issue
to me. The alternatives concern me more - do we just not
have an RSE-like function at all, in any capacity, being
executed, while we chat as a group? No documents are
published? We're paying for the RPC function by contract
now; I'd like to see our money well spent, personally. I'm
not sure I understand the analogy to a penalty box, but if
you mean we're in a holding pattern until we figure out
what we want then yes, I totally agree, we are, and I
don't see a better alternative. I'm happy to discuss any
alternatives you might have.
/S
Later, Mike
On 8/30/2019 12:38 PM,
Sarah Banks wrote:
Hello,
The
RSOC has received a lot of feedback regarding the
current SOW, in addition to the feedback received
generally around the RSE role, both on and off
list, and at the microphone at the plenary session
in Montreal. We've listened, discussed, and come
up with a proposal that you'll find attached here.
Broadly
speaking, the RSE role contains 2 functions, a
strategic function and a tactical function. We
believe that we, as a community, still want RFCs
published while we discuss the RSE role evolution.
We also have a contract in place with the RPC
(both Production Center and Publisher), both of
whom are accustomed to a day to day contact to
lean on for assistance (the current RSE).
With
that in mind, we are proposing a temporary
position that focuses on the tactical components
of the current RSE role, with 2 large work items
in mind.
First,
this temporary position (called the Temporary RFC
Series Project Manager) would serve as the day to
day contact for the RPC, assisting with tactical
items.
Second,
this role would focus on the v3 format work,
assisting with the delivery of the new tools for
the format work, and bringing the new format work
to a close.
Details
are included within the SOW, attached with this
email.
The
IAB plans on sharing a follow up email shortly,
that covers possible next steps for the strategic
portions of the RSE role and the evolution
discussion.
We'd
like to open a 2 week comment period on the SOW,
starting on August 30, 2019, closing ons on
September 14, 2019. Please send your comments and
feedback to the RSOC ( rsoc@xxxxxxx).
Kind regards,
Sarah Banks
For the RSOC
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
|
