Maybe I misunderstood the RSOC message.
I thought they had indicated that they were NOT trying to hire an RSE as
defined by RFC 6635 and its details. Rather, as I understood them, they
were hiring someone in a temporary capacity (explicitly NOT an acting
RSE) to keep the series running while the community decides what it wants.
Sure, that is breaking the letter of the law. I believe we all know
that. I actually appreciate that the RSOC understands that trying to
follow the letter of the law at the current time is a bad idea.
Given that we are on a path where we are not following the letter of the
laaw, it seems to me reasonable (good? bad? that is a different
question, but clearly reasonable) to use that latitude in formulating
the SoW so as to describe what we want, not what the letter of the law says.
Since our rules are not laws, and we are practical people, that seems okay.
And since reaching community agreement on what we do want is CLEARLY
going to take some time, I do not see how the LLC can say that they will
wait to hire someone to keep the trains running while we figure out what
we really want.
So yes EKR, this SoW violates the letter of RFC 6635. And if we want,
as a temporary measure, to violate it further in the interest of keeping
things on track while we figure out what we want, then explain what
further changes are needed.
Sure, I would prefer that we were all in agreement on what the job
really was, and we could hire the right person to hold the job for a
number of years. But we are not in such agreement.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/10/2019 4:59 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 16:45 Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ekr@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:39 PM Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian..e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
> This draft disclaims or contradicts RFC 6635 at a few points.
Do we really need to worry about that? This is a time of change
and I don't think it matters if we deviate from the letter of a
7-year-old Informational document.
Not Richard, but it seems to me that either one feels constrained by
these documents or one does not. And if not, then I think we need to
more generally ask whether the 6635 structure is even approximately
right.
Am Richard, concur with what EKR says here.
Even if one disagrees with the content of RFC 6635 (which we probably
all do, in different ways), there are other, non-Informational documents
that specify how to replace it with something that has community
consensus. And this ain’t it.
—Richard
-Ekr
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 11-Sep-19 08:00, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to put this together. It looks
much more like what I would expect an SOW / JD to look like than
prior drafts.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think it's a suitable starting point
for a process that is premised on RFC 6635. Despite the fact
that you've called it a PM, the contractor being engaged here
will act as RSE, even if only on an interim basis. So RFC 6635
clearly applies.
>
> This draft disclaims or contradicts RFC 6635 at a few
points. Specifically, the paragraphs in the summary starting
"The PM, as acting RSE, ..." and "The general
responsibilities...." are incompatible with RFC 6635, and the
"Reporting Relationships" section significantly underplays the
role of the RSOC.
>
> One of the foundational ideas in forming the LLC was that it
would follow the will of the community, and RFC 6635 encodes the
community's expectation of how the RSE role should be realized.
So it is incumbent on the LLC to follow the RFC (including, for
example, facilitating the RSOC's oversight), and this
solicitation needs to reflect that.
>
> In case the RSOC does choose to use draw on this document, a
couple of more specific comments are below.
>
> --Richard
>
>
> - I don't see a lot of value in calling this role a PM, as
opposed to just a temporary RSE.
>
> - Under "Education and Experience Requirements", I would lead
with the leadership requirement (i.e., swap the first two
bullets). As has been discussed at length here, the RSE (even
interim) is not an editor.
>
> - There's still some ambiguity here about the relationship to
the RPC and Publisher. If I understand the intent here
correctly, the idea is that this PM is not PM'ing the RPC, but
rather observing and opining on their performance (and providing
advice as necessary), as input to someone at the LLC who
actually manages that contract. But that seems in conflict with
the deliverables that use verbs like "coordinate" and "resolve
issues". It would be good to clarify this, probably in the
"Reporting Relationships" section.
>
> - As others have noted, the April 1 RFCs belong to the ISE,
not the RSE.
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 11:51 AM Michael StJohns
<msj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:msj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:msj@nthpermutation. <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.>.com>>
wrote:
>
> After thinking about it a bit, I decided I really didn't
like the SOW as
> it mostly ignored the input the community had given in
the discussion to
> the run up to the SOW. So I wrote a new one. This one
mostly
> completely replaces the project summary with something a
bit clearer for
> the bidders and I think more accurately describes the
role of the PM as
> acting RSE. The reporting relationship was changed to
more accurately
> reflect the legal relationship between the bidder, the
LLC and the RSOC
> and to constrain some of the issues we encountered in the
last few months.
>
> Much of the Education and experience section survived,
albeit rearranged
> and word twiddled in places.
>
> Ditto for the skills section.
>
> The "Operational Oversight" section is replaced by "Typical
> Deliverables" and broken up into three sections as I
suggested in an
> earlier email.
>
> I also added an "optional deliverable" to cover April
fool's RFCs.
>
> This is basically an SOW for an RSE, but with the
exclusion of planning
> for evolution of the series. That was the only thing I
could find as
> "strategic".
>
> Discuss!
>
> Mike
>
>
>
