IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> Sun, 08 September 2019 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E55512021D for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 08:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FPKVmqkFzJk3 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1830A1200D6 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182C1B81396; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 08:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A54BB81395 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 08:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DBFa-ty1TTzG for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 08:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9C37B81393 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 08:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id j1so357097qth.1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 08 Sep 2019 08:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-language; bh=pd+aSs4gk59nLd8ZZd+BEqg5GaaGxp9nkDCC1KKa1Q0=; b=NV0l8Mbyw91EWnqpOuzH3Rst82l7GN7+WsxPdBiBb13BMKhQxXbf9DT4Ge34RrWYzP mgNeFE6r1ZttksD8e0PbYgecFznzemjcgGGh8ZI/rfinEpb6w8uG4K0ivTOw7vdrB6Km hSXb2y6JexFPgkkTWqFcZxUejEimAgpQHde/ULtI9Dab8jLR5Md3XHoOiIcNuTl58MoB NvLKQUX+/E7MnbdW80TuV3MEfug5AEtptc9JrawADSbn0pE3ZcH6lqzLRJ98euyY+lba J7KVjFYlmTB5qlwo700+u43MJtZ8e3jG+eQ2gv7cwAQEuwTsr7QP3FKNVJbJ2xTWQn3J nGRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language; bh=pd+aSs4gk59nLd8ZZd+BEqg5GaaGxp9nkDCC1KKa1Q0=; b=fO1rtygnKYsTzs/sQDfRGx3TeKx7rSrPYoWt2tKF2G0U6u8P7czrIDriRYRPIjNmPu R/4JfF4Ai2bdP46Vcsh5+nxtAZNf6VufEe9uzXcoh1Jw52PH8tQEBFjZNZayH/KnxqwV YOr1K9AEbNN6beXP0jwLRa4Z1Elzsz4+3643vZuNGsfONqmOUnjdIExdOSKmTwNd0EFL 3q4qlqhSc1gvGzKp0Fp0hjufU8c3eJqKrdfa1aorY5+I/tWFqvtJgKl0fhTripXLw3L6 gh4xyJUEJdWT5X0V8y5fidRvGzcMFWPxhCqdOGxqaN0yP0r4MOn2bYLEPYDGqo9hRR44 +hbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW03P2y48VDBMwBowTBYj6EiDWuj3EHwH7P0Ho/wo5dSbcmQRzZ CxUsHpGPDZ4UvW+Fpmgg/uBGWG3cgD4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxYtyh93DxVevafhH1AqSiRObI7aXU/EOgp8j+2XATJpYHe7wpd1YcNzmTdwq+fY3UG1Soj/Q==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3f3a:: with SMTP id p55mr19893844qtf.148.1567957835149; Sun, 08 Sep 2019 08:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:cbe:e8ec:3551:21ad? ([2601:152:4400:437c:cbe:e8ec:3551:21ad]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z12sm5928356qkg.97.2019.09.08.08.50.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Sep 2019 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: IETF Discuss List <ietf@ietf.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Message-ID: <ec715385-93ca-ddf0-f9b1-d0e4ae1666fe@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 11:50:32 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------965829D7BE1294D12D7E1F6A"
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email