[rfc-i] Some questions about the RFC Editor restructuring plan
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Aug 7 15:37:27 PDT 2008
On 2008-08-08 10:15, Geoff Huston wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2008-08-07 22:20, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>> 1. The Independent Stream Approver job title
>>> The Independent Stream Approver is an unattractive name for the
>>> function. It sounds like an accountant/auditing function not as the
>>> "Chief Editor" of a important and relevant publication stream.
>>> Personally I think that this is a fair point. Suggestions for another
>>> title that is more attractive are welcome.
>> I was certainly one of the people who said this, so I'd better make
>> a suggestion. Since we need "RFC Editor" for the overall function,
>> how about "RFC Reviewing Editor [for the Independent Stream]" where
>> the part in brackets is only used when clarification is needed.
> Creating obfuscated titles is a wonderful, but ultimately pointless, game
> If the job is to review independent submissions then call the job
> "Independent Submission Reviewer"
> Or is that just too practical?
I'll be frank. I think we'll be hoping to get an academic to do this
pro bono, just as other journals like to have respected academics as
editor-in-chief. So I think the job has to sound academically respectable,
and the word "editor" does that. Would you go for "Independent Submission
More information about the rfc-interest