[rfc-i] Public face for the RFC series
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jan 21 09:29:33 PST 2009
At 11:52 AM -0500 1/21/09, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>As a general comment on the direction of this discussion, it seems to be moving
>1/ from a starting point of the RSE being a single person, part time, perhaps an academic taking this on as a visible role
>2/ to a full on institution in its own right, with software development and systems responsibility etc.
>With respect, I think the latter is setting up a component that will naturally be in opposition to the other components in the model,
Disagree. "Executive-level management" does not necessarily mean "in opposition".
>and is creating a type of position (institution) that is unfillable.
Also disagree. The single person might be an academic who knows how to manage small software projects (the tools in question require creativity in design but not any huge engineering effort), or that person might also be part of one of the two other roles.
>I'd (personally) like to draw the line at: the RSE is the public-facing PERSON for the RFC series, and as such they must be involved in discussions of tools and public-facing materials developed and operated by the other components.
That would be great if the SOWs for the other two roles reflect that. For example, the SOWs could have the production house and publisher create an initial set of tools; those tools would be reviewed by the RSE and the community; there might be rounds of incremental improvement that are funded through IASA or done with volunteer effort.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest