Re: RSE Bid Process

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,
At 12:08 PM 14-07-2019, Ted Hardie wrote:
>Thanks for your comment.  You are correct that the SOW does contain 
>this text: "Section 2.1.5 (Workload) of RFC6635 is not applicable to 
>this Statement of Work." and that the RSOC does not conduct a yearly 
>performance review as called for in section 3.1 of 6635. This 
>latter, as you may recall, is because ISOC's human resources folks 
>pointed out that this was how you reviewed employees, rather than 
>the output of a contract.  The text cited above also discusses the 
>position in terms of employee hours rather than output.

I don't remember when the performance review issue was first 
identified.  Anyway, I would look at it in terms of whether the model 
is aligned which what actually happens while excluding the legal aspects [1].

>Addressing this along with other issues, should be part of any 
>update to the RFC Editor

I did a quick comparison of RFC 6635 and 
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03.  Section 2.1.5 and Section 3.1 are 
similar except for minor changes.

>model.  A key question now is whether we conduct the hiring 
>according to a slightly
>modified SOW and have the new incumbent participate in the larger 
>discussion or conduct the discussion prior to recruiting a new 
>RSE.  The first strategy seems to be permitted by RFC 6635 under the 
>general rubric of the RSE's role in evolving the series.  The second 
>is also possible, but the result will likely be that there is no 
>overlap between a new incumbent and Heather.

One of the alternatives (if I understood correctly) is to have an 
overlap to ensure a smooth transition between the current RSE and the 
new RSE.  That also impacts on whether the larger discussion should 
happen now or next year.  My preference is to have the larger 
discussion now.  There would probably have to be a transition plan in 
parallel.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. That could be discussed outside a RFC if anyone is interested in it.