Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

Sorry to be so horribly prosaic, but I have some practical questions...

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:52 AM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There's something I've found myself saying to a couple of people in
> Montreal that I think is worth repeating here:
>
> 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.
>

Assuming we're going to adopt this approach:

How should this search committee make its decision?  Do you envision them
working from some sort of job description, or just "I know it when I see
it"?

How should this search committee be constituted?  RFC 6635 pretty clearly
places the IAB in this role, but the fact that you didn't say "IAB"
suggests that you mean some thing different.

Thanks,
--Richard



> 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.
>
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 16-Jul-19 11:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm going to start with Richard's first comment, and then come back to a
> couple of other comments, and then give my own comments on the "experience
> required" bullets:
> > On 16-Jul-19 06:02, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> Overall, this document seems odd for an SOW.  The point of an SOW is to
> state what the contractor must do in order to fulfill their end of the
> contract.
> >
> > Of course it's odd, because the concept of a "statement of work" with
> specific deliverables is off target for a job such as the RSE. I think
> that's part of the broader discussion we need to have, but for now we have
> to stick to the current model, which means an SOW.
> >
> > On 16-Jul-19 04:39, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >
> >>>    I don't think its a good idea to include "experience as an RFC
> author"
> >>
> >> Strongly agree.  We want a good technical copy-editor, which strikes
> almost all RFC authors from consideration, IMO.
> >
> > I want to repeat what the current RSE said. The job is not that of a
> copy-editor, nor that of a technical editor (which are both well-defined
> job descriptions). It's much closer to the job of a commissioning editor in
> a publishing house, but even that isn't correct.
> >
> > Experience as an RFC author is largely irrelevant, IMHO. Understanding
> what the IETF and the IRTF do, what other SDOs do, and even what academic
> journals do, is much more to the point.
> >
> > On 16-Jul-19 05:34, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> On 7/15/19 11:15 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't think its a good idea to include "experience as an RFC author"
> >>> as a desired skill. Including that requirement will skew the selection
> >>> towards the usual suspects and Recruiting the next RSE from within the
> >>> community should imo not be a high priority for us.
> >>
> >> I emphatically disagree.   Why should IETF entrust the editing of its
> >> work product to someone who might not understand IETF's mission or
> share
> >> its values?
> >
> > We shouldn't. But firstly, it's the Production Center that actually does
> the technical and copy editing, and secondly, writing an RFC is not a
> precondition for understanding the IETF.
> >
> > My bottom line:
> >
> > "* Significant editorial and publishing experience desired."
> >
> > That understates the case. I think our experience with Heather has shown
> that this isn't just desirable, it's essential. Try:
> >
> > * Significant senior editorial and publishing experience required.
> >
> > "* Familiarity with a wide range of Internet technologies."
> >
> > That seems parochial, and there also seems to be a missing aspect. Try:
> >
> > * Familiarity with Internet technologies and technical standards.
> >
> > "* Experience as an RFC author desired."
> >
> > On balance I'd delete that. Possibly replace it with:
> >
> > * Experience with standards publication desired.
> >
> > Regards
> >     Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>