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

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:39 PM Brian E Carpenter <
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.

-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>> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>