[rfc-i] [IAB] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt)

Lynn St.Amour st.amour at isoc.org
Tue Nov 18 06:26:44 PST 2008


On Nov 16, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:

<snip>

>> == Funding of the Independent Submission editor.
>>
>> Jim wrote:
>>> 4.  The statement on funding for the Independent Submissions Editor
>>> worries me.  I believe that this job is currently funded as part of
>>> the contract with ISI.  (Bob, please correct me if I am wrong.)   
>>> This
>>> document is making the statement at that it will no longer be funded
>>> through IASA and, implicitly, says that we don't believe that the  
>>> job
>>> is of sufficient
>>> importance for the IAB to make sure that the job is funded at all.
>>> If we
>>> believe that this job is basically a sinecure, then this is not a
>>> problem.
>>> If we believe that this job actually would require a substantial
>>> amount of work, then this is an issue.  I would not be surprised to
>>> find out that we are paying for this work either via the use of the
>>> production house for dealing with documents that are not actually
>>> ready for production, the RFC Series editor's or the IESG's time for
>>> dealing with documents that should not be published or the
>> communities
>>> time for dealing with documents that should never have been
>> published.
>>
>> That the IASA is not funding the effort does not mean that it is  
>> not of
>> sufficient importance for the IAB to make sure the job is funded at
>> all. It is not the case that the IAB has deep pockets, but we can
>> certainly work towards assisting in finding funds for e.g. a stipend.
>>
>> The problem is that when the IETF is paying the function its
>> independence from the IETF is obviously at stake.
>
> Great - Put this in the document as an argument as to why we are no  
> longer
> going to fund this position.  I think that a simple statement that we
> believe it SHOULD be funded by some party would also be reasonable.


Hi Jim,

In discussions with the IAB and IAOC, they were all clear that it  
should be funded.  ISOC has had some preliminary discussions and we  
are predisposed to fund it as this is an essential part of the RFC  
Series.  Maintaining it as a separate stream yet within a "related"  
publication framework would seem to be a clear win-win.

Regards,
Lynn


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list