[rfc-i] Some questions about the RFC Editor restructuring plan
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Aug 8 15:59:27 PDT 2008
At 3:29 PM -0700 8/8/08, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
>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).
That is how it should be. The person responsible for the copy editing
should be doing both training and review of the copy editors.
>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.
This, too, is how it should be.
>Please remember the initial sense of anger expressed by the
>community when the copy editors were introduced because the RFC
>Editor was "over editing".
This may have been due to too little training of the copy editors
and/or too little oversight of them.
>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.
This does not sound like a good situation. Shouldn't there be a small
bit of training to bring them all up to the correct speed? Most
professional copy editors can learn these types of things in a small
number of hours, approximately the time it would take to copy edit
maybe two RFCs.
The take-away here is that, in the proposed structure, the Production
House is responsible for the copy editing *and* for making sure the
copy editing is done well (as well as other tasks, of course).
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest