Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Wed, 04 September 2019 03:43 UTC
Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171FD120088 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 20:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XD9HsJGQ50DN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 20:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FF21120072 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 20:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB4280094; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 23:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aws.hosed.org
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1NnU0nE62hu; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 23:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.16.12.109] (c-73-71-250-98.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.71.250.98]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38BF68007D; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 23:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <04ce01d55fe7$6c428300$44c78900$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 20:43:42 -0700
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B14DFF42-329F-4C28-AEAC-4341FC5F017B@encrypted.net>
References: <061D2F46-71C3-4260-B203-73B07EB59418@encrypted.net> <5B276430-96A9-44EA-929B-B9C2325AFCA5@encrypted.net> <f9be9982-56f5-bdcc-3b09-13080532ffc5@comcast.net> <D7B6334A-A4EF-4386-905F-86C187E22899@encrypted.net> <04ce01d55fe7$6c428300$44c78900$@olddog.co.uk>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QPt6rXfpnYp47NVDF1Zlj9HzhLE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 03:43:47 -0000
Hi Adrian, Please see inline. > On Aug 31, 2019, at 3:32 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > [Deliberately continuing the discussion cross-posted despite the Sergeant At Arms’ entreaties] > > Thanks for coordinating the construction of this draft and for putting it out for comment. > > In the ensuing discussions… > >>> 1) Is this a full time position? If not, then describe the expected >>> workload. From the description, it's a level of effort contract >>> somewhat less than full time. State that level. >> >> SB// The RSOC in years past has specifically stayed out of the "how >> long does it take to do the job" and the "this is a 32-hour-a-week" >> job. I'd defer this to the LLC; if the person they're hiring is a contractor >> I'm not sure this matters, since they're bidding on the total amount of >> work (that's been the thought) versus the employee who clearly needs >> to understand if this is a part time or full time job. > > When people bid fixed-pay fixed-deliverables on a contract, they usually have a pretty detailed description of the work, that way they can work out how much time they think it will take them, and bid accordingly. If such detail is not available, a wise contractor will make an estimate and add a lot of contingency. That puts up the price paid by the customer, potentially unnecessarily. OTOH, an unwise or "keen" contractor may under-bid risking that a poor job will be delivered. Frankly, the more detail supplied, the more accurate the bid and the better the work. > > Alternatively, the customer may give better guidance as to the expected amount of work. The draft says that RFC 6635 section 2.15 is not applicable, and (of course) that is true because this SoW does not cover all of the job described in the RFC. But at the same time, it should be clear to everyone that if 6635 considered that the job was 20 hours per week and nearly full time during IETF week, then the work covered by this SoW is bounded by that as an upper limit. > > Anyway, I don't think the current draft has enough detail of what the job is to enable a meaningful bid. Maybe this is fixed by simply adding something to say that during the process of preparing bids and on request, the RSOC will make available to bidders additional information to help them scope and understand the nature of the tasks. > I think what I'm hearing you say is that providing some sort of time bound would help here. Point taken, thank you. > > Further to the tactical/strategic discussions on the list, I don't think it is helpful to show your thought processes in the SoW. I would suggest: > - Strike "The RSE’s job functions can be logically split into 2 functional areas: strategic and tactical." > - Replace "is being created to fill the tactical functions of the RSE role" with "is being created to fill certain functions of the RSE role as listed below" > - Strike "These “tactical” responsibilities of the RSE are not defined explicitly in RFC6635; the expected nature of the work is explained below." > Doing this would allow you to make the list of tasks you want done, without getting into discussion of whether they are 73% tactical and 27% strategic. > > Thank you for your feedback, we will discuss. I realize that sounds canned, but it's so true. :) > I struggle with the following paragraph: > Some of the functions described below may not be possible within that timeframe > (for example, chairing the search committee when the RPC contract goes out to bid > again). It is expected that this position and the person filling it will work with the > RSOC to identify new or changing work items as they arise. > > To me this reads as though you want the contractor to be very flexible on deliverables. Firstly you are giving permission for the contractor to not deliver some things: I guess that's OK, no one will object to being paid for not delivering 😊 Second, you might be saying that new/changed deliverables may arise, but you are not making it clear whether you expect them to be delivered under the contract or not. The usual way to handle both of these points is "variations by mutual agreement in writing." > Yup, that's exactly what we're saying. Some of what we know we want we've clearly stated; some of the rest we don't know, so we're giving a heads up. Any changes to deliverables would happen the same way we do it today with Heather; we discuss as a team, and agree or disagree as a team. We cannot simply add something to the list without the contractors buy in; that's crazy talk. We would mutually adjust, if need be. We can certainly discuss the language you've proposed, thank you for providing an alternative. > > Why "Scope of work - primary"? Is there a secondary scope of work somewhere? > > You know, I can't really answer that, other than to say "this is the SOW we've used for 2 bidding processes, and to minimize churn, my thought was specifically to keep things as status quo as we could." If the major concern here is calling it "scope of work - primary" we can certainly refine this :) > I would expect to see a termination clause. > The SOW is NOT the contract. I would expect the termination clause there for all the regular HR-ish reasons that lawyers put in there. I'll defer this to the LLC and confirm that's there; if not, then I agree, we'll have to agree on where to put it and if it's the SOW, then so be it, and draft the language. > > The line "This relationship is subject to later reorganization" should be business as usual in a contract like this, but the history suggests that it might be better to be a bit clearer. Just as a point of note, the previous paragraph names the RSOC as the body with whom scope changes might be identified, but (presumably) if the reporting changed, that wouldn't be true. > Feel free to suggest text that might make it clearer. I'm not sure I can do better than this. We don't know what we don't know and to your point, they might not report to the RSOC (although I expect this interim contractor probably would, and the new RSE would be where the change starts, but that's for us to all discuss). Even if it did though, I'd argue that "the relationship is subject to later reorg" covers this. If not, what do you propose to say instead? > > Finally (you'll be glad to hear), what is the purpose of item 3 on the Affidavit? Is the intention here that you propose that only entities registered in the US for tax purposes may win this contract? Nope, that's never been the case before, I'd expect it to not be now, either. We'll review. > > Good luck! > Adrian
- New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Stephen Farrell
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Matthew A. Miller
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Eliot Lear
- RE: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW commen… John C Klensin
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael StJohns
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… John C Klensin
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Melinda Shore
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Eliot Lear
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Leif Johansson
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- SAA Do's and Don'ts Michael StJohns
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Keith Moore
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Melinda Shore
- tone policing (was: SAA Do's and Don'ts) Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts John C Klensin
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing (was: SAA Do's and Don'ts) Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: tone policing Stephen Farrell
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Melinda Shore
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: tone policing lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Christer Holmberg
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Paul Wouters
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Nick Hilliard
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Nick Hilliard
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Dirk-Willem van Gulik
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing ned+ietf
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Randy Bush
- Re: tone policing Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Patrik Fältström
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- RE: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: tone policing lloyd.wood
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Paul Wouters
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Doug Royer
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Joel M. Halpern
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Stephen Farrell
- Re: tone policing Brian E Carpenter
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Randy Bush
- Re: tone policing Leif Johansson
- Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Paul Wouters
- BIMI: Re: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Stan Kalisch
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Nico Williams
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael Richardson
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Leif Johansson
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period (off-topi… S Moonesamy
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Brian E Carpenter
- "community" for the RFC series (was: Re: [rfc-i] … Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series (was: Re: [rfc… John C Klensin
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- The IETF, Standards process, and the impact on th… Michael StJohns
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Michael StJohns
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Keith Moore
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Leif Johansson
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Randy Bush
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: "community" for the RFC series John C Klensin
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Randy Presuhn
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series S Moonesamy
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Michael StJohns
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Michael Richardson
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Keith Moore
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [IAB] "community" for the RFC series Colin Perkins
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Keith Moore
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter