Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:11:23 -0400



    Hi Richard - in line

    
    On 9/10/2019 4:00 PM, 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.

      
    There's at least three counter-points to that point of view:
    1) We've got an LLC, we didn't have an LLC when this was
      written.   The LLC will write the contract and legal language
      trumps non-binding text.  The person or persons bidding on the
      contract will mostly get a say in how much if any of 6635 applies
      (e.g. "incorporated by reference") when the contract is
      negotiated.

    
    2) 6635 was an IAB document, not a community consensus document
      and as such only describes what the IAB thought the model should
      be.  As such, the IAB can waive as much or as little of that as it
      wants; bringing us to point (3).  

    
    2a) Also as not-a-community-consensus document, the internet
      community could consider it's not bound by that document and the
      LLC could take notice.

    
    3) The IAB and the RSOC has already waived section 2.2.5 of 6635
      in both the SOW that was crafted for Heather and in this draft
      SOW, so obviously even the IAB and RSOC don't consider 6635
      sacrosanct.

    
          A note about RFC6635: Section 2.1.5 (Workload) of RFC6635
            is not applicable to this Statement of Work.
        
      
        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.  

      
    Yup - but see point 1 above.   We have a legal entity that will
      be holding the contract and this is not us telling the ISOC what
      we'd like and the ISOC doing what's legal as before.  Cf
      "performance review".

    
        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.

        
    And when we have a community consensus document, I'd be happy to
      have the LLC follow that.  6635 encoded the IAB of 2009's
      understanding of the RSE role, but had as subtext the actual role
      of the RSE as executed by Bob, Joyce and Jon.   I would argue that
      the current IAB's and RSOC's interpretation of that RFC has
      strayed from the 2009's understanding given current events.  But
      that's probably a better discussion under a different subject
      header.

    
        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.

      
    Yup.   Easy enough to change.

    
        - 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.

      
    Nope.  The RSE is certainly an editor - the series editor.  For
      S&G I found this: 
https://katelynknox.com/writing-first-humanities-book/acquisitions-editor-vs-series-editor/  
      I would submit that this is exactly what we want from the RSE. 
      (And why would we call the position RFC Series Editor if this
      weren't the case?).  The most important role here is the series
      shepherd as series editor.  That implies and wraps the leadership
      requirement and as such is listed first.

    
        - 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.
      
    
    Yes and no.   If I had my way, I'd make the PM the technical
      liaison between the LLC and the RPC with a careful set of
      descriptions as to the guidance and "direction" the PM is allowed
      to give.  Same model as RSOC to the PM, except accounting for what
      we're asking from the RPC and the PM in terms of global vs
      specific skill sets.  There's a whole lot of difference between
      providing direction to the RPC and the (ideally very small) level
      of oversight a senior person needs.

    
    The section does need tweaking, but I did try to mimic the
      language of the RSOC's draft SOW to the greatest extent
      possible.   Let's see where it goes - I'm not adverse to changes
      to deconflict the sections.

    
        - As others have noted, the April 1 RFCs belong to the ISE,
          not the RSE.

        
    Yup.  On the edit list.
    

    Mike