[rfc-i] The "executive management" conundrum
dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Jul 18 18:25:18 PDT 2011
The v2 document and the job 'profile' description that is being circulated attempt to specify the job in functional terms, rather than rely on broad labels. By rights, removing this particular broad label should not affect the substance of the description in the v2 document.
So with your concern that "we empirically seem to be losing something by getting rid of it" the question is, obviously, what wording you believe needs to be changed?
John C Klensin <john+rfc at jck.com> wrote:
Sorry this is late. I was going to sit the issue out, but some
events of the last few days seem to argue for revisiting it.
I agree that "executive management" has caused more confusion
than it was worth. At the same time, we empirically seem to be
losing something by getting rid of it.
Stated in as close to functional terms as I can get, the RFC
Editor Model (v2 and v1) call for an RSE who manages departments
(in this case, one or two contractor organizations with their
own internal leadership and management structures), not
individual people. Managing at that level --especially with
limited direct authority-- involves a somewhat different set of
skills than editing documents or directly managing editors. So
someone who had been an editor or publisher, even a lead editor,
or headed a group of editors, might be sufficiently qualified
but definitely should not be considered an exact match to the
requirements of the job on the basis of prior experience.
FWIW, the "executive management" story started out more or less
right there: someone whose experience included managing
departments and above, not just individuals who are carrying out
specific tasks under her direction.
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest