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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard - in line

On 9/10/2019 4:00 PM, 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.

There's at least three counter-points to that point of view:

1) We've got an LLC, we didn't have an LLC when this was written.   The 
LLC will write the contract and legal language trumps non-binding text.  
The person or persons bidding on the contract will mostly get a say in 
how much if any of 6635 applies (e.g. "incorporated by reference") when 
the contract is negotiated.

2) 6635 was an IAB document, not a community consensus document and as 
such only describes what the IAB thought the model should be.  As such, 
the IAB can waive as much or as little of that as it wants; bringing us 
to point (3).

2a) Also as not-a-community-consensus document, the internet community 
could consider it's not bound by that document and the LLC could take 
notice.

3) The IAB and the RSOC has already waived section 2.2.5 of 6635 in both 
the SOW that was crafted for Heather and in this draft SOW, so obviously 
even the IAB and RSOC don't consider 6635 sacrosanct.

>   * A note about RFC6635: Section 2.1.5 (Workload) of RFC6635 is not
>     applicable to this Statement of Work.
>

>
> 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.

Yup - but see point 1 above.   We have a legal entity that will be 
holding the contract and this is not us telling the ISOC what we'd like 
and the ISOC doing what's legal as before.  Cf "performance review".


>
> 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.

And when we have a community consensus document, I'd be happy to have 
the LLC follow that.  6635 encoded the IAB of 2009's understanding of 
the RSE role, but had as subtext the actual role of the RSE as executed 
by Bob, Joyce and Jon.   I would argue that the current IAB's and RSOC's 
interpretation of that RFC has strayed from the 2009's understanding 
given current events.  But that's probably a better discussion under a 
different subject header.

>
> 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.

Yup.   Easy enough to change.


>
> - 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.


Nope.  The RSE is certainly an editor - the series editor.  For S&G I 
found this: 
https://katelynknox.com/writing-first-humanities-book/acquisitions-editor-vs-series-editor/ 
I would submit that this is exactly what we want from the RSE. (And why 
would we call the position RFC Series Editor if this weren't the 
case?).  The most important role here is the series shepherd as series 
editor.  That implies and wraps the leadership requirement and as such 
is listed first.


>
> - 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.

Yes and no.   If I had my way, I'd make the PM the technical liaison 
between the LLC and the RPC with a careful set of descriptions as to the 
guidance and "direction" the PM is allowed to give.  Same model as RSOC 
to the PM, except accounting for what we're asking from the RPC and the 
PM in terms of global vs specific skill sets.  There's a whole lot of 
difference between providing direction to the RPC and the (ideally very 
small) level of oversight a senior person needs.

The section does need tweaking, but I did try to mimic the language of 
the RSOC's draft SOW to the greatest extent possible.   Let's see where 
it goes - I'm not adverse to changes to deconflict the sections.

>
> - As others have noted, the April 1 RFCs belong to the ISE, not the RSE.

Yup.  On the edit list.


Mike