Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 10 September 2019 23:02 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 D15D0120019 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Jrt1K7GyPQlg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9105120013 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id w22so12415498pfi.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hg0a/rk6yIEVDlYZ1h8mAmlM5+kcEwpEJaxhc5fVhDc=; b=IKsCKc2P2eyZXL7sL4vJP1TklhlekN8E5vmUxABKRP1czBLh/TtlkwuNql5afXL9/a GL4x/ftjrmJ80Qr4UqMnbBXXLFbK8Ih8d92JRt1MGiEq577uBA75PMHDi02l/MvcYXIR H5D31yeobCGlti4/HH4fMOOOYgPzJpA9CD5SlW7ZMaZs3sK+fkjqCiV5m6NhBgJYbFrx ZIBE1jehF1CziHjHFu0IZqY3eBbt1tWCgnYFnA0HOd9w8cR+3zWpPkwQY9fiE8nvLCOo pV7Pku9vY/OOm4jOvWrrSwja62hWCQv8mPoY0mYicWnQ5Ayh+DQ3GFulM61wuzfRkpFW +dPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hg0a/rk6yIEVDlYZ1h8mAmlM5+kcEwpEJaxhc5fVhDc=; b=Oa5qbWLyQaXyEN3TDeGLmRM7SwtHYzm+rICr9LCy9uBAZDR81tM1DEXDFD02vNPDeP sFgR05mCyRiPXBSyH8Gm4VPcCxBdxtKwwHdVmayuAf19jPB0umbXGVpFi8pIi0/X8JBf i6zEzNL4tu0r/7OrTIPpUx4S1KRALcdlC1yOIfer1biUC6y0f80Lk4pKlcgNGaMVcg4E Mp7guACRkLUQH27KzhXLSKVkd7ZPJH1chYZF7ZxOtsTbjprnwty5seIt8jh21CNn0AA/ fZMX0YNj7dIEg30sU4Iim17XPd6mFy3DNhRKqC9UYB5rbNPzg3qZc6ff2Fd+BjtSt8Lk vWrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYWNjEdPBTnRPY1fZ79Ie0tkKm7/xatUilCmG+V7ybRAYKPiak gNMbfZypvZYWPAy4oHBxT4yFtHAi
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy1p+E9P5WekrgwOSy4bawg30cxCcxSz/TP8XPNgS56qKijJmuf9sRVfMM9ofwZl338i2P8Dg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9ab:: with SMTP id 40mr2104209pjo.38.1568156524740; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (82.206.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.206.82]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d20sm26722991pfq.88.2019.09.10.16.02.03 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <ec715385-93ca-ddf0-f9b1-d0e4ae1666fe@nthpermutation.com> <CAL02cgTqDTXgG1bU1DGBkdQ7XwV=2ryJzQU1QD8yNba-7ngk3A@mail.gmail.com> <44cbe750-e030-69d7-54ba-5eaeccc5f512@gmail.com> <CABcZeBNw8c17F0bvcSJoS4R=dk_KoSx1jWkEnupUUps6k8UcGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgS88fD7BkrE4T0A+S99xN-b4JZDm4yu2nLAb3oiG50S4g@mail.gmail.com> <1dbc8dbe-d883-a433-8dc4-247ac1760152@joelhalpern.com> <CAL02cgRz=yZW+oE-wxoWQJ-8fbfi4NBFLNk2KSafHh+2FPUNPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <681bea04-a31a-bd26-6982-9a2c1238ef0f@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:02:01 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRz=yZW+oE-wxoWQJ-8fbfi4NBFLNk2KSafHh+2FPUNPw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dyACP0q9GGLdV8qVLG3PsuEwIyo>
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:02:09 -0000
On 11-Sep-19 10:06, Richard Barnes wrote: > That was not my understanding, FWIW. Maybe the RSOC could clarify? > > Mike’s proposal seems even weirder through your lens, though, since it does not describe a caretaker RSE role, but rather a full on RSE in every regard except the application of the oversight specified in RFC 6635.. They're *our* rules so we can choose to ignore them or change them. Can we just evaluate Mike's proposal on its merits: does it describe what we want to happen next? There's a parallel discussion needed about how we'd like to change the rules. And the changes proposed might be radical. That's why I wrote https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CommentaryIAB.pdf, and why we have some RFC Editor Model virtual interims coming up. Brian > > —RLB > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 17:10 Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote: > > Maybe I misunderstood the RSOC message. > I thought they had indicated that they were NOT trying to hire an RSE as > defined by RFC 6635 and its details. Rather, as I understood them, they > were hiring someone in a temporary capacity (explicitly NOT an acting > RSE) to keep the series running while the community decides what it wants. > > Sure, that is breaking the letter of the law. I believe we all know > that. I actually appreciate that the RSOC understands that trying to > follow the letter of the law at the current time is a bad idea. > > Given that we are on a path where we are not following the letter of the > laaw, it seems to me reasonable (good? bad? that is a different > question, but clearly reasonable) to use that latitude in formulating > the SoW so as to describe what we want, not what the letter of the law says.. > > Since our rules are not laws, and we are practical people, that seems okay. > And since reaching community agreement on what we do want is CLEARLY > going to take some time, I do not see how the LLC can say that they will > wait to hire someone to keep the trains running while we figure out what > we really want. > > So yes EKR, this SoW violates the letter of RFC 6635. And if we want, > as a temporary measure, to violate it further in the interest of keeping > things on track while we figure out what we want, then explain what > further changes are needed. > > Sure, I would prefer that we were all in agreement on what the job > really was, and we could hire the right person to hold the job for a > number of years. But we are not in such agreement. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 9/10/2019 4:59 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 16:45 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com> > > <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:39 PM Brian E Carpenter > > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> <mailto:brian..e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian..e.carpenter@gmail.com>>> > > 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 > > <msj@nthpermutation.com <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com> <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com>> > > <mailto:msj@nthpermutation <mailto:msj@nthpermutation>. <mailto:msj@nthpermutation <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 > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Michael StJohns
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… Lucy Lynch
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Richard Barnes
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Richard Barnes
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Richard Barnes
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Salz, Rich
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… Salz, Rich
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Michael StJohns
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Sarah Banks
- Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW commen… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SO… S Moonesamy