(Sorry for repeat, I messed up the CCs). On 11-Sep-19 10:06, Richard Barnes wrote: > That was not my understanding, FWIW. Maybe the RSOC could clarify? > > Mike’s proposal seems even weirder through your lens, though, since it does not describe a caretaker RSE role, but rather a full on RSE in every regard except the application of the oversight specified in RFC 6635.. They're *our* rules so we can choose to ignore them or change them. Can we just evaluate Mike's proposal on its merits: does it describe what we want to happen next? There's a parallel discussion needed about how we'd like to change the rules. And the changes proposed might be radical. That's why I wrote https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CommentaryIAB.pdf, and why we have some RFC Editor Model virtual interims coming up. Brian > > —RLB > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 17:10 Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > 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> > > <mailto: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> <mailto: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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:msj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> > > <mailto:msj@nthpermutation <mailto:msj@nthpermutation>. <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 > > > > > > > > > > > >
