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

> 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.

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
> 
> 
> 

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