Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

[John Wroclawski <[e-mail]>]

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

Walking in from the distant sidelines, I would like to +1, or perhaps +1000, this note.

It hadn’t crystalized for me until Brian said it, but I think he’s got the key point exactly.

The basic gestalt of a search committee process is to find the best person in the world for a job, whether or not that person would have otherwise applied, or even whether they had any idea beforehand that the job existed and they’d be good at it.

The basic mindset of an RFP process is to pick the best person that applies.

I think the IETF wants option one.

To address a couple of points raised in replies to Brian, a) search committees absolutely _do_ work from written descriptions of the job, its key objectives, and likely-desirable candidate qualifications, and b) senior/executive search committees do indeed do this type of thing successfully all the time, and c) absolutely there are a great number of details to work out about responsibilities, structuring, communications, etc. that are extremely important as well.

But the key point is, I think, the IETF wants option one.

Cheers, —john