Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

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

As far as I know, the RSE search has never been principally (or at all) 
a financially based selection.
The bids were evaluated based on the apparent likelihood of the person 
successfully performing the needed job.  And if at all possible, doing 
more than we asked for.

I don't know why anyone thinks that the RSE search was price based.  The 
negotiation of salary is left to the IAD (ED) AFTER the selection.  (In 
fact, it is because that negotiation needs to take place, and could 
fail, that there is latitude in the request from the IAB to the IAD / ED 
/ IAOC / LLC.)

Yours,
Joel

On 7/22/2019 6:57 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> First, big +1 to mentioning Joyce more often :-)
> 
> Second, to the substance of Brian’s comments. My personal comments, only of course:
> 
>> The RFC Series Editor has always been treated as a senior colleague, and part of our community leadership; never as a hired hand, because it isn't the sort of job that can easily be measured or priced. Obviously, as a practical matter, the RSE has to be paid for their time and expenses, but it really doesn't matter whether that's as an employee, an individual contractor, or via their existing employer. That's basically a clerical matter, once the right person has been identified.
> 
> I fully agree!
> 
> (With a small caveat of relevant RFCs being flexible enough to allow that. But RFCs can be changed.)
> 
>> Obviously there will be a finite budget limit that the search committee will bear in mind. But we aren't trying to find the cheapest RSE; we're trying to find the best one.
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
>> I now think that the notion of a pre-defined statement of work and a competitive bidding process is *completely* inappropriate. What we should do, IMHO, is identify the right person by a search process with a well-informed search committee, and then leave IETF LLC to figure out any necessary employment or contractual details later.
> 
> I agree that a RSE is a very high level leader. But I’m not sure it directly follows that no statement of work or definition of role should exist. Usually when there’s a role to be filled somewhere in the world, even for a high level leader, there is some definition of what’s the scope and the expectations. But perhaps you meant to have an argument that the current RFC and/or SOW are far too focused on details and should emphasise the leadership aspect and not the details. And should clearly leave room for the selected leader to drive into a direction that she or he will eventually find the best direction. I’d be much easier convinced of that.
> 
> I have a similar reservation about appropriateness of “competitive bidding process”. I fully agree that making a search primarily a competition (and particularly, a finance-based competition) for any leadership position is a bad idea. But whether you’re looking for a CEO, Area Director, or the RSE there’s at least some possibility of alternative choices. If competition is the only thing in the search team’s mind, that would be bad. But they need to be aware of the potential out there when they are doing a search.
> 
> Jari
> 
>