[rfc-i] RFC Editor Structure

[Paul Hoffman]

The proposed RFC Editor structure looks fine. It's good to see the 
IAB getting this straightened out so that future bidders on the RFC 
Editor contracts can know what they are bidding on.

As many people know, Standcore (basically, John Levine and I) bid on 
the RFC Editor RFP last year, so we have thought a great deal about 
what kind of structure would make sense. We think the proposed 
four-part model makes sense. A few notes on the specifics:

- Of the two proposals for selecting the RFC Editor role (RFP from 
the IAOC, selected by the community), having the RFC Editor being 
chosen by an RFP from the IAOC is probably best. It seems likely that 
bidders would want to bid on the RFC Editor and Production House 
tasks at the same time, and it would make sense to let the IAOC bid 
the two of them simultaneously.

- The person in the ISS role preferably should *not* work in the same 
organization as the RFC Production House role. Having the Independent 
Stream queue being input to the same organization that is supposed be 
managing the queue can lead to errors and misunderstandings. All four 
queues should be on the same footing.

- The RFC Publisher is truly a minor amount of work. If it is not 
just given to the Secretariat, it should probably be part of the RFC 
Production House job and let as a variable price contract. It is hard 
to see how this would cost more than $3000/year, and could easily be 
less than that, meaning that it is less than 1% of the RFC Editor 
budget.

- The structure document did not lay out who would be responsible for 
creating the new tools that many people have asked for, that would 
make the process faster and more understandable. These include modern 
tracking of author reviews, an updated xml2rfc system, better search 
facilities, and integration of the RFC Editor queue and the I-D 
Tracker. These tools could be developed by the RFC Production House 
or the RFC Editor, but should be done with oversight of the IAOC and 
with a specific budget for the tools.

Again, we feel that the structure proposed is a good one, and we look 
forward to helping with the evolution of this important task.

--Paul Hoffman

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium