[rfc-i] Developing consensus, episode 2: Expected hours of work for the RSE

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Feb 7 15:16:48 PST 2011

On 2/7/11 1:56 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
>>> If you can get the people who made your impression to come forward with
>>> their estimates, that would help this discussion a lot.
>> Maybe, but presumably if they are still interested in the topic
>> they are here and can speak up.
> I, like Brian, talked with various folks.   In my case, I talked them as
> part of developing the original RSE job description and as part of the
> interviewing process.  I can't name them but I can tell you I communicated
> in some form with five folks, whose estimates roughly were:
> 	    A: half time
> 	    B: half to 3/4 time
> 	    C: a bit over half time
> 	    D: #'s close to Paul's
> 	    E: half time
> You can believe me or not.  I realize this is not super satisfactory but
> like Brian, I can't reveal details unless folks step forward -- note that
> some are not on this list.
> That said, I think a more compelling answer would be to take the estimates
> of folks who have done something close to this job, namely Bob Braden and
> Glenn, rather than guesses from those (including me) who have not done it
> and are translating from editorial jobs they've done elsewhere.

Craig, it is not a question of believing you and/or Brian: I don't think 
anyone is suggesting bias or dishonesty. Instead, as you say above, your 
estimates were gotten for a job description that is very different than 
what we have in front of us now. The numbers I estimated were for the 
current job description (from Olaf's draft), not the one from 18 months 
ago, and not from the one that Bob worked under, nor even the one that 
Glenn worked under.

If people here are OK with estimating the hours needed for the RSE based 
on different job descriptions than what we have now, that might work. 
However, it also might lead to the same bad situation we had before 
where the people doing the selecting and the interviewees are working 
from very different assumptions.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list