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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

(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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[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]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:39 PM Brian E Carpenter
>     >     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[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:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >         <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
>     >          >
>     >          >
>     >          >
>     >
>