Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> writes:

> Let me run a few terms past you (we can quibble about each, but this
> seems to be the general  set I've seen - there are variations within
> each):

I think your terms and definitions are reasonable, so I won't quibble
about those. I've been on both sides of most of those terms.  And none
of them are as rigid as you state, of course, because there is a lot of
gray area in any definition list.  I've seen contractors be told exactly
what to do and be micro-managed (and they put up with it or they lose
the contract), and I've seen employees be let free to roam and do what
they thought was best because they were hired to be smart.



> * Employee - generally at will employment, most positions within a company, can be
> told what to do, when to do it and how to do it generally by anyone above them in the
> food chain.  Generally only has a single employer (at least for salaried employees).

Your use of "can be" in the employee definition is the important part.
Its not the definitions of the position type that matters.  It's how we,
as the organization and people that are defining the role interact and
manage said role.  If we want to attract and keep good talent for the
critical RSE role, then the way to do that is by being the type of
organization and manager that will attract talented folks and make them
want to stick around regardless of the business relationship type we select.

[...other quotes snipped for length...]

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI