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

On 9/10/2019 5:10 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstood the RSOC message.
> I thought they had indicated that they were NOT trying to hire an RSE 
> as defined by RFC 6635 and its details.  Rather, as I understood them, 
> they were hiring someone in a temporary capacity (explicitly NOT an 
> acting RSE) to keep the series running while the community decides 
> what it wants. 

Hi Joel -

I found/find the RSOC message somewhat mixed.  On one hand we have what 
was in the emails (from Ted and the RSOC) and the pre-amble to the SOW 
that says "temporary, non-RSE" and then there's the experience and 
deliverables in the draft SOW which have no more than a playing card's 
thickness difference from the deliverables in the SOW under which 
Heather was hired.  As far as I can tell (IMHO) RSOC's draft SOW mostly 
takes away the authorities of the RSE while leaving most if not all of 
the responsibilities.   I did ask how these two positions differed and 
which responsibilities should be removed to make the difference clear - 
Sarah asked me to propose text, so I did albeit not in the way she might 
have expected.

   I re-wrote that SOW - especially the preamble - to reflect a more 
acting RSE model which made sure that there was an identified 
"responsible person" for all of the current RSE responsiblities. If the 
RSOC and the IAB want something that's distinctly not an acting RSE, 
they're probably going to need a substantially different SOW and a much 
more constrained set of responsibilities/deliverables as well as an 
explanation of who gets the authority and responsibility over the 
remaining set (if any).

I clipped out the rest of your text as it applies equally well to 
arguing for/against a 6635 centric model and I want to think about it a 
bit more.

later, Mike

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest