Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

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

On 23-Jul-19 02:05, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 7/22/19 8:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> The RFC Series Editor has always been treated as a senior colleague, and part of our community leadership; never as a hired hand, because it isn't the sort of job that can easily be measured or priced. Obviously, as a practical matter, the RSE has to be paid for their time and expenses, but it really doesn't matter whether that's as an employee, an individual contractor, or via their existing employer. That's basically a clerical matter, once the right person has been identified.
>>
>> I now think that the notion of a pre-defined statement of work and a competitive bidding process is *completely* inappropriate. What we should do, IMHO, is identify the right person by a search process with a well-informed search committee, and then leave IETF LLC to figure out any necessary employment or contractual details later.
>>
>> Obviously there will be a finite budget limit that the search committee will bear in mind. But we aren't trying to find the cheapest RSE; we're trying to find the best one.
> 
> Either that, or we need to completely rethink the role of RSE.

I think that was already done, in the last round of relevant RFCs. What seems to be happening now is an undiscussed rethink of the role.
 
> IMO, we keep trying to replace Jon Postel, who was a very unique individual who grew into that role at a unique time.

No, I don't think so. Jon wasn't a professional in that particular role; he was a protocol expert from our community who thought carefully about the publishing aspect. So was Bob Braden. That's exactly the model we moved away from a few years ago. We essentially moved to the opposite: a publishing expert who thought carefully about the technical community aspect. 
 
> I certainly agree with Brian (and also John) /if/ we persist in thinking of the RSE as a senior (and wise) colleague who can be trusted to act in the best interests of the Internet and IETF (in that order).    (note that I don't mention governments or corporations or even other standards-making bodies as having legitimate interests here.)  
> 
> But maybe that's not the best idea, maybe such people are extremely scarce by now, and maybe they'll be nonexistent in the future.   And if we can't count on having suitable candidates in the future, then it seems likely that the role should be redefined, less independent, and subject to closer oversight.

Not joking: that sounds like what ITU-T does.
 
> choose carefully!

Indeed.

    Brian