[rfc-i] Some questions about the RFC Editor restructuring plan
ginoza at ISI.EDU
Fri Aug 8 15:29:56 PDT 2008
A few comments below...
On Aug 7, 2008, at 3:20 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> First a few answers to your questions, then a few words on what I
> picked up in the hallways.
> On Jul 31, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
>> * Please give a concise summary of how this restructuring model
>> from the current model. Note that the proposed model is so
>> general that it includes as
>> one case the current ISOC contract with ISI for RFC Editor services.
> This is the _first_ model of the RFC editor function. Under the
> current contract ISI performs almost all of the functions indicated
> in the diagram. The notable exception is that some early copy
> editing is done under direct contract under contract with ISOC,
> managed by the IAOC .
While it is true that the IAOC manages the contracts of the copy
editors, the RFC Editor (currently) manages the workload and training
efforts (with the ability to escalate problems to the IAD).
Just an FYI:
Please note that there is a notable difference between the work of
the copy editor and the primary editor that works with the document/
authors until publication.
The idea of hiring "commodity copy editors" was introduced in
2005-2006, while the RFC Editor was backlogged. It was thought that
hiring copy editors would help increase the pace with which documents
were published. When the RFC Editor project was put out to bid, the
copy editors were separated from the RFC Editor contract to reduce
costs. I do not have an understanding of how the copy editor/primary
editor relationship will be handled in the proposed structure model
(e.g., will the copy editing and editing be reunified in the
production house; will the copy editors remain a separable function
and managed by the production house and/or the "RFC Editor"; etc.),
but I hope the intent is not to rely more heavily on the copy
editors. Please remember the initial sense of anger expressed by the
community when the copy editors were introduced because the RFC
Editor was "over editing".
We currently have 3 active copy editors working with the RFC Editor.
Each of them has varying levels of IETF- and RFC-specific knowledge,
and each of them returns a different level of copy-edited product.
They correct grammar/spelling errors and bring the primary editor's
attention to problematic areas on a regular basis. However, it is
the primary editor that then reviews the copy edited document,
filters through the edits (often re-editing), interacts with the
authors to clarify questions, reviews, verifies, and updates IANA-
related text, checks formal languages, applies their judgement
based on IETF- and RFC-specific policies/tendencies, etc.. There is a
*significant* difference between the copy edited document and the
document that is provided to the authors for review during AUTH48.
>  For the benefit of folk not familiar with this: an example of
> such contract can be found at http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
More information about the rfc-interest