[rfc-i] Developing consensus, episode 2: Who chooses the Production Center and Publisher
Glenn at RiverOnce.com
Thu Feb 10 08:18:27 PST 2011
On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:55 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> could be modified to
>>> Based on the RSE and evaluation team's ongoing input, the IASA selects ,
>>> negotiates and contracts and has final authority.
>>> Is that close enough to what you're looking for?
>> Well, explicitly declaring 'ongoing' input is an improvement. But 'input' is
>> really just advisory and this still allows the IAOC to negotiate details that
>> the RSE considers unworkable.
> We are stuck with the fact that the IASA has final authority and I understand the point you are making (such conflict would IMHO ultimately result in an RSE walking away). I interpret what you seem to be calling for is that that final details are done by IASA with the RSEs input being taken seriously and being involved. To me that is captured in the word 'cooperation'.
> So would s/input/cooperation/ make more clear that this is a mutual process.?
The consistency of the contract with the SOW, and the ability of the RSE to follow
the contract and the SOW, is paramount. The following paragraph attempts to
"The IAOC will remain in close consultation with the RSE to ensure that contract
terms and other arrangements do not conflict with the SOW nor the RSE's ability
to perform their role or execute the contract."
This is consistent with BCP 101. It also ensures that the SOW is taken seriously
while it's being developed, and thereafter.
More information about the rfc-interest