[rfc-i] Selection process for the ISS and RFC Editor roles

[Paul Hoffman]

At 4:21 PM +0200 6/24/08, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>Finally I observe that we have had no concrete feedback on the 
>selection process by which the ISS and the RFC Editor should be 
>selected. Would folk consent with a RFC 4333 type selection of those 
>roles?

A RFC 4333-style selection process is probably OK for the ISS role 
(review independent submissions) and the RFC Editor role (RFC series 
continuity, style manual, and errata processing). However, from 
earlier parts of this discussion, it sounds like both roles are meant 
to be paid positions. If so, using RFC 4333-style selection to select 
the people to fill the roles might be a bit odd, since RFC 4333 was 
designed to select volunteers.

The compensation for each role would need to be stated up front 
without negotiating with the chosen candidate; otherwise, the people 
putting their names up for consideration won't know whether or not 
they would want to accept if chosen. While predicting the number of 
hours it might take to perform the ISS role based on history is 
possible, doing so for the new RFC Editor role is probably impossible 
due to lack of data. (As an aside, it would be nice if ISS were 
compensated by ISOC instead of IASA to make the independence clearer.)

One possibility is that the IAB and IASA agree ahead of time what the 
compensation for the ISS role would be, then do an RFC 4333-style 
selection process, while having the RFC Editor role chosen by an 
IASA-led bidding process like it was a few years ago.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium