Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah -

First things first.  I'll come back to this email later in the day, but 
I wanted to offer an apology. I'm sorry that you took my comments as a 
personal attack.  It wasn't my intent and I'll try and moderate my words 
going forward.   I will understand if you decline to answer my comments, 
questions or complaints in public, and I'm happy to have a private 
conversation on any of these topics.  But I feel its important for the 
community to have this conversation about the RSE in public to the 
greatest extent possible, and unfortunately for you as RSOC chair, its 
probably going to be your lot to facilitate those conversations.

I'll come back to this note later today to work through your comments 
after I've had time to work through day job stuff, but again, please 
accept my apology.

Mike


On 9/3/2019 11:26 PM, Sarah Banks wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> Please see inline.
>
>> On Sep 2, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/30/2019 3:39 PM, Sarah Banks wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> Some thoughts, inline. Speaking for myself. SB//
>>
>>
>> Not really.  Seriously - you're the author of the SOW with the RSOC 
>> so this is direct commentary on your work product.
>>
>>>
>
> SB// I'm honestly perplexed by this response. I am speaking for myself 
> and my comments are not representing RSOC consensus, which I would 
> relay with the RSOC chair hat on. I also believe it's perfectly 
> permissible for me to have a voice without my chair hat on. I honestly 
> expect you to know this, which makes me think there's something else 
> at play here, and we have a disconnect; am I missing something?
>
>>>> On Aug 30, 2019, at 10:30 AM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Five immediate large items:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 0) The requirements for this position are pretty much 
>>>> indistinguishable from that of the RSE as stated in previous 
>>>> versions of the SOW.   I don't think that makes sense.  If this is 
>>>> simply a "we want to hire some short time to do the RSE position", 
>>>> then state that rather than using the figleaf of strategic and 
>>>> tactical.  I'm not saying you'll get community buy-in for that, but 
>>>> at least it would be less obfuscated.
>>>
>>> SB// The thought here was as intended; specifically on tactical, and 
>>> nothing more. It IS focused on what the current RSE does tactically 
>>> - I'm not sure how we change that until the community has a 
>>> conversation about the role. I'm all ears and open to suggestions, 
>>> though!
>>
>> I don't think you've actually thought through the tactical items well 
>> enough for the community to give you a thumbs up or down.
>>
>> So some additional questions:
>>
>>     a) Does this contract end with the RSE contract is let?
>>
>>
>
> The SOW clearly calls for a firm initial term. I believe I've also 
> followed up since stating there might be overlap. Help me understand 
> where the confusion is here? Have I overlooked something?
>>
>>     b) Does the RSE regain most of the tactical stuff?
>>
>>
>
> Your question assumes outcome of the community process. I have no idea 
> what that outcome is. This is a TEMPORARY role. There's nothing to 
> "take" away from the next RSE, should we the community choose to 
> continue to have one. I'm being somewhat obtuse on purpose - the SOW 
> is NOT a comment on what happens with the next RSE or the process or 
> any of that - the SOW covers the specific work items laid out, with 
> the ability to adjust them by mutual consent should something arise, 
> and allow RFCs to continue flowing while we, the community, figure out 
> what we want to do.
>
>>     c) If so, there's an end product that needs to be requested - the 
>> hand-over documentation.
>>
>>
>
> This might be a reasonable addition to add to the SOW. Let's see what 
> others think.
>
>>     d) Does acting as the tactical person prevent you from bidding on 
>> the RSE?  If not, why not?   [E.g. insider knowledge vs fairness of 
>> the bid process]
>>
> The SOW doesn't take a position on this, and IMHO, that's a good 
> thing. We want the best person for the job. Any incumbent would have 
> "insider knowledge", in that they know how the process works, and are 
> already sitting in the job. I don't think this is our biggest problem 
> to solve, or a huge problem in and of itself. That's my opinion. If 
> the rest of the community feels differently they can say so and we'll 
> discuss.
>
>>     e) Can you think of any of these items to eliminate as "can wait 
>> for an RSE"?  If not, then see my original question (0).
>>
>
> I don't understand what the "items to eliminate" are? The SOW is 
> specific in it's 2 goals, which I've already stated again in this 
> email. They cannot wait, hence the SOW.
>
>>>
>>>> 1) Is this a full time position?  If not, then describe the 
>>>> expected workload.   From the description, its a level of effort 
>>>> contract somewhat less than full time. State that level.
>>>
>>> SB// The RSOC in years past has specifically stayed out of the "how 
>>> long does it take to do the job" and the "this is a 32-hour-a-week" 
>>> job. I'd defer this to the LLC; if the person they're hiring is a 
>>> contractor I'm not sure this matters, since they're bidding on the 
>>> total amount of work (that's been the thought) versus the employee 
>>> who clearly needs to understand if this is a part time or full time 
>>> job.
>>
>>
>> I can't see how this could be let as a firm fixed price contract or 
>> even a piece work or deliverable task contract.  I think this is an 
>> LOE contract with meta deliverables.  You're going to want some of 
>> this persons time to be committed, and you're going to want to tell 
>> them up front what that time commitment is.   I think figuring out 
>> what that LOE is is squarely in the wheelhouse of the SOW authors.
>>
>>
> Your opinion is noted, thank you.
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> SB// The goal is to have the conversation as a group, and figure out 
>>> what to do. if we don't want a managed RFC Editor, but the 
>>> independent model that folks believe we should have, then as a 
>>> community we should say that, and figure out how to instrument what 
>>> we want. Personally, I like the spirit of what was described to me 
>>> starting with Postel, and having some independence from being told 
>>> what to do blindly with the ability to push back doesn't seem to be 
>>> a bad thing. But that's my personal thought, and as an RSOC it's not 
>>> our current purview to tell the community what to do.
>>
>> I agree, however, the RSOC seems to have taken it as a purview to 
>> diminish the independence of the RSE from previous levels.  If the 
>> RSOC (and for that matter) would take a look at what it was fall of 
>> 2016 vs how its been behaving vis a vis the RSE since that point in 
>> time, I'd be much happier with your statement that you don't tell the 
>> community what to do.
>>
>>
> Mike, what exactly do you want? Honestly, what is it? I believe the 
> RSOC made a mistake. We publicly and very specifically said that we 
> made the mistake, owned it, and apologized. I am incapable of undoing 
> that mistake, it is what it is. That said, I believe the RSOC has been 
> very thoughtful in it's actions since, starting with the feedback 
> we've received, drafting a new SOW, and IMO clearly stating that the 
> SOW is specifically a temporary position that allows us to keep RFC's 
> flowing while the community figures out "what's next". I'm at a loss 
> to understand how we're telling the community what to do.
>
> This is starting to feel a little more personal, and while I'm happy 
> to have this conversation with you, I'm no longer willing to do it on 
> a public list. I believe it would be more productive to do 1 on 1, and 
> I'm happy to meet and talk whenever is convenient for you. I want your 
> opinion and your feedback. You've been here a very long time, and have 
> a perspective that's steeped in an experience that I'm not sure 
> everyone else understands. I value that, and I'm not trying to stifle 
> that, but I am trying to keep it productive for both of us.
>
>
>>> We're trying to strike a balance between the process we have, which 
>>> keeps our contractors moving and documents flowing, and allowing the 
>>> community to do its thing. This position "reporting" to the LLC 
>>> makes little sense to me - 1. that's not the current process we have 
>>> (and if you don't like it, speak up and change it, Ted's outlined 
>>> how we might proceed to doing that) and 2. The LLC really isn't 
>>> equipped to handle it either.
>>
>> See my note to Stephen.  Basically, I think it may be OK to have the 
>> RSOC operate as a COTR under the purview of the LLC with no ability 
>> to tell the RSE what to do, but instead acts as an advisor to the LLC 
>> for contract issues.  That gives whoever gets hired one and only one 
>> point of control to deal with.   I'd also suggest that the RSOC no 
>> longer do the "we're talking about contracts in executive session" 
>> stuff and instead call for community input every couple of years or 
>> so and write a public report detailing pros and cons based on that 
>> input (and specifically no anonymous input) as the basis for the LLC 
>> to make its decisions.  6635 is not controlling on the LLC as they 
>> are the fiduciaries - but the community might not like that 
>> interpretation.  They could adopt 6635 as an operating instruction by 
>> vote of the board, but I don't see that as having taken place.
>>
>>
>
> That's your point of view, *a* point of view, and I think it's 
> reasonable for this to be a part of the conversation that we have as a 
> community to decide how we want things to change. If we agree as a 
> community on it then I suppose bigger changes are coming. But I'll 
> point out that it's outside the purview of this SOW.
>
>>> The RSOC seems to be the reasonable choice given the situation we 
>>> find ourselves in, and again, this is a 1.5 year contract with 
>>> clearly described goals.
>>
>> "clearly described goals" is overstating it I would say.  Sorry.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
> There's a saying I have on my team - don't come to me with problems, 
> come with solutions. It's perfectly acceptable to not agree with what 
> I said, If you feel it's not "clearly described goals" then please, 
> propose text for the rest of us to review and agree upon that leaves 
> you comfortable with the goals being clearly stated. I'm happy to help 
> review.
>
> Thanks,
> Sarah
>
>>
>>> We'll have the conversation to change (or not) - in the grand scheme 
>>> of things, this doesn't seem to be an issue to me. The alternatives 
>>> concern me more - do we just not have an RSE-like function at all, 
>>> in any capacity, being executed, while we chat as a group? No 
>>> documents are published? We're paying for the RPC function by 
>>> contract now; I'd like to see our money well spent, personally. I'm 
>>> not sure I understand the analogy to a penalty box, but if you mean 
>>> we're in a holding pattern until we figure out what we want then 
>>> yes, I totally agree, we are, and I don't see a better alternative. 
>>> I'm happy to discuss any alternatives you might have.
>>>
>>> /S
>>>
>>>
>>>> Later, Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/30/2019 12:38 PM, Sarah Banks wrote:
>>>>> (Cross-post with [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> The RSOC has received a lot of feedback regarding the current SOW, 
>>>>> in addition to the feedback received generally around the RSE 
>>>>> role, both on and off list, and at the microphone at the plenary 
>>>>> session in Montreal. We've listened, discussed, and come up with a 
>>>>> proposal that you'll find attached here.
>>>>> Broadly speaking, the RSE role contains 2  functions, a strategic 
>>>>> function and a tactical function. We believe that we, as a 
>>>>> community, still want RFCs published while we discuss the RSE role 
>>>>> evolution. We also have a contract in place with the RPC (both 
>>>>> Production Center and Publisher), both of whom are accustomed to a 
>>>>> day to day contact to lean on for assistance (the current RSE).
>>>>> With that in mind, we are proposing a temporary position that 
>>>>> focuses on the tactical components of the current RSE role, with 2 
>>>>> large work items in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, this temporary position (called the Temporary RFC Series 
>>>>> Project Manager) would serve as the day to day contact for the 
>>>>> RPC, assisting with tactical items.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, this role would focus on the v3 format work, assisting 
>>>>> with the delivery of the new tools for the format work, and 
>>>>> bringing the new format work to a close.
>>>>>
>>>>> Details are included within the SOW, attached with this email.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IAB plans on sharing a follow up email shortly, that covers 
>>>>> possible next steps for the strategic portions of the RSE role and 
>>>>> the evolution discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'd like to open a 2 week comment period on the SOW, starting on 
>>>>> August 30, 2019, closing ons on September 14, 2019. Please send 
>>>>> your comments and feedback to the RSOC ([e-mail] 
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>).
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Sarah Banks
>>>>> For the RSOC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
>>
>