|
Hi Sarah -
First things first. I'll come back to
this email later in the day, but I wanted to offer an apology.
I'm sorry that you took my comments as a personal attack. It
wasn't my intent and I'll try and moderate my words going
forward. I will understand if you decline to answer my comments,
questions or complaints in public, and I'm happy to have a private
conversation on any of these topics. But I feel its important for
the community to have this conversation about the RSE in public
to the greatest extent possible, and unfortunately for you as RSOC
chair, its probably going to be your lot to facilitate those
conversations.
I'll come back to this note later today
to work through your comments after I've had time to work through
day job stuff, but again, please accept my apology.
Mike
On 9/3/2019 11:26 PM, Sarah Banks
wrote:
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
|
