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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

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.

—RLB


On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 17:10 Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:39 PM Brian E Carpenter
> >     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     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
> >         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         <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
> >          >
> >          >
> >          >
> >
>