Re: ESC tendering policy changes ...
* Michael Meeks (michael.me...@collabora.com) wrote: > Hi there, > > > * ESC tender project proposal process (Thorsten) > > + proposal would be: (Thorsten) > > + share the draft in public: see > > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/YprpsFP45z7a7p3 > . > + the unnecessary lengths we go to exclude people: the three > years is egregiously punitive - particularly in light of > the forward looking Declaration of Potential Conflict; lets > remove it. The future matters, for future tendering, not > the past. As someone who has very recently left a large relevant company, the other problem is that in a large company there are people who are on entirely different projects with no overlap with TDF stuff. Excluding ~300k people seems a little exessive when a few 10s of them may be relevant. Dave > + the effort we go to to exclude people - when the output of > this is just good advice for the board to act on is staggering. > > + the balance seems very substantially wrong in terms > of preserving our statutory meritocracy & efficiency > > + it is not worth sacrificing these to this extent to > try to solve every possible concern someone could > raise: there is already significant ongoing risk of people > using such spurious concerns to unbalance our governance. > > + Effort Estimate & exclusion is silly: > > + excluding the few non-conflicted experts in the > space - who are vital to review the code is totally > counter-productive. > > + if someone is not going to tender, and is not > affiliated - just assessing the estimate > should not exclude them from further process - > such as eg. seeing if it was delivered properly. > > + it is very unclear what rational can be used to > add a whole extra layer of CoI here. > > + the pool of skilled people here in any specific > area is small. > > + There are also many deeply wrong ideas embedded in > this idea of an accurate effort estimate. > > wrong premise 1. that effort is easy to estimate - for >extreme accuracy it takes a significant %age > of the time to do the job. > > + such estimates are best done by 2x > skilled people, with a range of > best/likely/worst triple-point > estimates, breaking down the problem > etc. > > + even so - fixed-priced projects bankrupt > skilled consultancies in all industries, > even non-innovative traditional ones eg. > building projects. > > wrong premise 2. that all engineers have the same >skill/experience level - there is no >"person day" - this varies 10x depending >on the person even among experienced engineers > cf. Fred Brooks, passim ad nauseum > > wrong premise 3. that person days can be meaningfully linked >to cost for a fixed-price project. > > + pricing include risk of overruns > > + pricing includes load factors & other > concurrent bids, capacity, probability of > other bids closing etc. this is a commercial > nightmare; think Ryan-Air, over-selling the > plane by a factor of two. > > + payment risk as well as reputational risks of > contracting for TDF are -very- substantial. > >the only sensible determination of price is >by seeing the result of a public, contested > tendering. To pretend otherwise is silly. > > 4. many tendered fixed-price tasks cost the people > executing on them rather more than they are bid > for - not even the companies with the experts > can get this perfectly right. > > + worse - this quest for an accurate estimate seems to > serve no very useful purpose. It is fine to have a > hyper-accurate number, but if no-one will deliver it in > that time - you wasted your time. > > + I would suggest that we instead have a process that > ranks tasks, tenders them by priority top-down and then > decides on reasonableness based on a number of ball-park > estimates. > > + the wisdom of crowds can give us several rough > ball-parks reasonably easily. > > + and otherwise to completely ignore this step, or > at least explain what extra purpose it tries to solve > > + Obvious hostages to fortune: > > "Only non-Conflicted Members can vote in the ESC." > > + this needs to be profoundly (and redundantly) > specialized - in the
ESC tendering policy changes ...
Hi there, * ESC tender project proposal process (Thorsten) + proposal would be: (Thorsten) + share the draft in public: see https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/YprpsFP45z7a7p3 I spend a little time reading and thinking about them a bit; here is where I got to with an hour or so: Good: + as I understand it this allows all of the ESC members to rank proposals - while only those without a (very theoretical) COI can vote on that as a recommendation to the board. + if so - that should be made more explicit in the Ranking text: "all members of the ESC can rank proposals." Easy to improve: + the staff should have a formal role in ensuring that the "Ordinary Procedure" takes place in a timely way, with announcements clearly signaled, community informed, deadlines well presented etc. + as many 'MUST's that involve deadlines should fall on paid staff not volunteer ESC members. + it is a typical, external misunderstanding that the ESC is some top-down command & control thing, better to think of it as a group of friends meeting up. + Staff voting + due to the excessive exclusion rules, paid TDF staff will inevitably become the overwhelmingly dominant voting block in the ESC on tendering. + as such - staff must be protected from fear of consequences of voting any given way in the ESC. + it should be made clear that they are there as individuals and volunteers; that they cannot be instructed to vote any given way, and that any retaliation in the management chain to the board will be treated severely. + possibly this belongs in a simple covenant from TDF - and not here, but - it is worth saying, and it goes without saying that my understanding is that all paid staff are treated like this anyway. Easy typo: + s/Form Tendering/From Tendering/ 'MUST' be improved: + the unnecessary lengths we go to exclude people: the three years is egregiously punitive - particularly in light of the forward looking Declaration of Potential Conflict; lets remove it. The future matters, for future tendering, not the past. + the effort we go to to exclude people - when the output of this is just good advice for the board to act on is staggering. + the balance seems very substantially wrong in terms of preserving our statutory meritocracy & efficiency + it is not worth sacrificing these to this extent to try to solve every possible concern someone could raise: there is already significant ongoing risk of people using such spurious concerns to unbalance our governance. + Effort Estimate & exclusion is silly: + excluding the few non-conflicted experts in the space - who are vital to review the code is totally counter-productive. + if someone is not going to tender, and is not affiliated - just assessing the estimate should not exclude them from further process - such as eg. seeing if it was delivered properly. + it is very unclear what rational can be used to add a whole extra layer of CoI here. + the pool of skilled people here in any specific area is small. + There are also many deeply wrong ideas embedded in this idea of an accurate effort estimate. wrong premise 1. that effort is easy to estimate - for extreme accuracy it takes a significant %age of the time to do the job. + such estimates are best done by 2x skilled people, with a range of best/likely/worst triple-point estimates, breaking down the problem etc. + even so - fixed-priced projects bankrupt skilled consultancies in all industries, even non-innovative traditional ones eg. building projects. wrong premise 2. that all engineers have the same skill/experience level - there is no "person day" - this varies 10x depending on the person even among experienced engineers cf. Fred Brooks, passim ad nauseum wrong premise 3. that person days can be meaningfully linked to cost for a fixed-price project. + pricing include risk of overruns + pricing includes load factors & other concurrent bids, capacity, probability of other bids closing etc. this is a commercial nightmare; think Ryan-Air, over-selling the plane by a factor of two. + payment risk as well as
