Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

     I agree that the way we behave towards our staff (senior and 
otherwise) is the important part.  Unfortunately, we have two problems 
in that area.
     First, we have recently been interacting with the RSE in ways that 
seem unlikely to encourage strong professionals to expect positive 
treatment.  I do not think that was the intention, even of those who 
want changes in the series.  But I think it is a likely effect.
     Second, we are in the process of hiring the person who, if the RSE 
were to be an employee, would be that person's boss.  So it is hard for 
anyone interviewing to judge how the organization will work.  Again, 
that was not a deliberate choice on anyone's part.  But it is an 
important part of the reality.

     It seems to me therefore that we have to find ways to define and 
describe the job so that we can give likely candidates confidence in 
what they are likely to face / be supported by.  While the formal part 
of that falls to the RSOC, we all share in the informal part of it.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/29/2019 2:08 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> Let me run a few terms past you (we can quibble about each, but this
>> seems to be the general  set I've seen - there are variations within
>> each):
> 
> I think your terms and definitions are reasonable, so I won't quibble
> about those. I've been on both sides of most of those terms.  And none
> of them are as rigid as you state, of course, because there is a lot of
> gray area in any definition list.  I've seen contractors be told exactly
> what to do and be micro-managed (and they put up with it or they lose
> the contract), and I've seen employees be let free to roam and do what
> they thought was best because they were hired to be smart.
> 
> 
> 
>> * Employee - generally at will employment, most positions within a company, can be
>> told what to do, when to do it and how to do it generally by anyone above them in the
>> food chain.  Generally only has a single employer (at least for salaried employees).
> 
> Your use of "can be" in the employee definition is the important part.
> Its not the definitions of the position type that matters.  It's how we,
> as the organization and people that are defining the role interact and
> manage said role.  If we want to attract and keep good talent for the
> critical RSE role, then the way to do that is by being the type of
> organization and manager that will attract talented folks and make them
> want to stick around regardless of the business relationship type we select.
> 
> [...other quotes snipped for length...]
>