[rfc-i] RFC Editor Structure

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 14:33:05 PDT 2008


Bob,

Yes, I'm aware of the history here and I'm only repeating
my previous opinion on this. I have to say that over the years
I've come to greatly prefer the fully open model of review,
even if one does get roasted in public from time to time.
The academic model of confidential review is a good way to
filter out substandard work at an early stage, but public
review seems to be the best way to get high-quality documents
at the end of the process. I'm not sure why this community
would want to do it any other way. (There's a risk of
pocket veto in any model, but we have checks and balances
to prevent that.)

    Brian

On 2008-06-06 06:38, Bob Braden wrote:
>  
>   *> 
>   *> 2. Also re the Independent Stream: "...no changes to the Editorial
>   *> Board are being proposed." Let's discuss that. I don't like the
>   *> current degree of secrecy around the way the EB reviews independent
>   *> submissions.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> RFC 4846 (July 2007, Klensin & tHaler) established the rules for
> handling reviews of independent submissions.  In general, the RFC
> Editor has been attempting to follow that document since it was
> published.
> 
> Originally, the RFC Editor used the academic model, in which reviews
> are (of course) shared with the author but not made public.  RFC 4846
> generally favors posting of reviews, although in fact it does not
> absolutely require it; see section 7.1.  In any case, the RFC Editor
> intends to follow the general thrust of 4846 by posting reviews on our
> web site, and we began the process of making that happen.
> Unfortunately, higher priority issues intervened, and we never got back
> to complete the task.  Thanks for your comment, and we will try to
> remove the veil of "secrecy" ASAP.
> 
> Bob Braden
> 
> 
>      Especially if we end up spending IASA money explicitly
>   *> for this stream, I'd like to see all EB reviews being made public.
>   *> People who want to publish via confidential peer review have lots
>   *> of other places to try.
> 
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list