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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 16:45 Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:39 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> [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: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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>