[rfc-i] Some questions about the RFC Editor restructuring plan

Geoff Huston gih at apnic.net
Thu Aug 7 16:33:26 PDT 2008

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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
> Editor"?

Its acceptably warm for me, but then I'm not putting up my hand to do
this for free :-)

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list