[rfc-i] RFC Editor Model Final Version?
Ray Pelletier
rpelletier at isoc.org
Sat Sep 6 03:41:27 PDT 2008
inline
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
>
> Folk,
>
> Given the little amount of public feedback I got I once went to my
> inbox again, talked to a few people and tried to come up with a
> straw-man that addresses the tension points.
>
> 1) The interaction of the RFC editor and its environment.
>
> In the text below that is addressed by calling out that the RFC
> editor is responsible for identifying the steps that need to be
> taken and to call out that the IAOC is responsible to asses if those
> steps have been taken by the other parties. Obviously the RFC editor
> will be involved in that assessment.
>
> 2) Off line it was beeing made clear that the Editorial board
> currently advices/works with the RFC Editor about issues that will
> fall under the role of the 'RFC Editor function'. In the text below
> that role is called out too, in addition it is made clear who is
> responsible for the appointment of board members (I picked the
> Independent Stream Editor for that).
>
> 3) It was also made clear off-line that it is not quite clear how
> the RFC Editor can continue the "Branding" of the series when the
> publication function moves into the IETF secretariat. I tried to
> address that by extending the "Style Manual" responsibility
> somewhat. Maybe there is a better way to phrase that.
>
> I realize these a quite a few changes but I think they reflect the
> consensus of the folk that I've heard both on- and off line.
>
> So... the text below is a straw-man for the consensus document.
> Please respond before end of next week if you have specific issues
> otherwise this is what we start with.
>
> I will try to get this text published on the IAB website ASAP. At a
> later stage this will be turned into a proper I-D and then published
> as an RFC. However the goal is to have this serve as the basis for
> 2009's RFI/RFP process.
>
> --Olaf
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> The RFC Editor Structure
>
> Introduction
>
> The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned
> with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor
> succession, maintaining RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility.
> The IAB is also sensitive to the concerns of the IAOC about
> providing the necessary services in a cost effective and efficient
> manner.
>
> The definition of the RFC series is described in RFC 4844.
> Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
>
> 3.1. RFC Editor
>
> Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC
> Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now
> requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are RFC
> Editors,
s/editors/Editors
or strike so there are RFC Editors
> or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be
> multiple organizations working together to undertake the work
> required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without
> attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them,
> this document refers to this collection of experts and organizations
> as the "RFC Editor".
>
> The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor,
> acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC
> Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
> RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition,
> the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in
> discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving
> RFCs.
>
> RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor organizational
> structure. The IAB considered a change to increase flexibility and
> operational support options, provide for the orderly succession of
> the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while
> maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring
> document accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost
> transparency.
>
> Expenses for the RFC Editor
>
> The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They
> arepart of the IASA budget. Today, these expenses are part of the
> RFC Editor contract with ISI.
>
>
> IAOC implementation
>
> The model is constructed in such a way that it allows for all these
> functions to be implemented jointly or under different contracts.
> In fact, a bidder could put together a proposal that includes one or
> more subcontractors. Since the reporting structure would depend on
> how the manner that the contracts are awarded, they are subject to
> change over time. As a result, the model does only describe
> responsibilities, procedures, and process. The exact implementation
> is a responsibility of the IAOC.
>
>
> Proposed RFC Editor Model
>
> The proposed RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the
> RFC Series into the following:
> 1. RFC Editor
> 2. Independent Submission Editor
> 3. RFC Production
> 4. RFC Publisher
> The RFC Series Production and Process under this structure is
> schematically represented by the figure below.
>
>
> RFC Editor
>
> The RFC Editor is a single person, and this person is responsible for:
> 1. Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity
> 2. Participate in IAOC reviews of the RFC Publisher and RFC
> Publication
> functions to ensure the above mentioned continuity
> 3. RFC Style Manual publication for use by authors, editors, and
> the RFC publisher
> 4. RFC errata process management
> 5. Liaison with the IAB
>
>
> After identifying the appropriate steps for RFC continuity the
> implementation of those steps lay with the RFC production and
> publishing functions. Since it is the IAOC that maintains oversight
> of the implementation RFC Editor participation in reviews of that
> implementation is expected.
>
> The RFC Editor is a senior managerial position with a strong
> understanding of the IETF process and seasoned management skills and
> is supported by the RFC Editorial board (see below).
>
> The IAOC has two alternative selection methods; it may consider in
> an RFI and subsequent RFP.
Strike ' it may consider in an RFI and subsequent RFP.' as the 2nd
alternative of community selecion and IAB confirmation falls outside
an RFP process
>
>
> The first alternative for the selection of the RFC Editor is through
> a Request for Proposal (RFP) process run by the IAOC. As in the
> first alternative, the IAOC would seek a person with the listed
> qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP. The winner would be
> selected by the IAOC in consultation with the IAB, and then, the
> IAOC would contract for the services. Contract terms, including
> length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in
> an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available.
> Expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Editor
> would be part of the awarded contract and be part of the IASA budget.
>
> The second alternative is an individual with the listed
> qualifications selected by the community and confirmed by the IAB.
> An approach similar to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC
> member every other year as described in RFC 4333 could be used.
> Expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Editor
> selected in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
Does either of these alternatives contemplate a salary or stipend for
the RFC Editor, which is likely to be a part time position? Or is
this ore akin to the volunteer positions like the IESG, IAB and IAOC
for which there is no salary or stipend?
>
>
>
> Independent Submission Editor
>
> The Independent Submission Editor is a single person, and this
> person is
> responsible for:
>
> 1. Independent Submissions approval and processing
> 2. Forwarding RFCs in the independent stream to the RFC Publisher
s/RFC Production/RFC Publisher
>
> 3. Independent Submissions RFC errata review and approval
> 4. Appointment of RFC Editorial Board members, see below
>
> The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the
> following qualifications are desired:
>
> 1. Technical competence
> 2. Deep familiarity with the RFC series
> 3. An ability to assess the technical competence of potential
> Editorial Board members
> 4. Good standing in the technical community in and beyond the IETF
>
>
> The individual with the listed qualifications selected by the
> community and confirmed by the IAB. An approach similar to the one
> used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year as
> described in RFC 4333 could be used. Expenses to support the
> administrative operation of the Independent Submission Editor
> selected in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
See questions above regarding Editor salary or stipend.
Ray
>
>
> RFC Production
>
> In the proposed split of activities, RFC Production is performed by
> a paid contractor, and the contractor responsibilities include:
>
> 1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
> Manual
> 2. Creating records of edits performed on documents
> 3. Engaging in dialogue with authors when clarification is needed
> 4. Creating records of dialogue with documents authors
> 5. Requesting advice from the RFC Editor as needed
> 6. Provide suggestions to the RFC Editor as needed
> 7. Coordinating with IANA to obtain registry information
> 8. RFC number assignment
> 9. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher
> 10. Forwarding records of edits and author dialogue to RFC Publisher
> 11. Liaison with IESG and IAB
>
> The RFC Production contractor is to be selected by the IAOC through
> an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the RFC
> Editor. The IAOC would seek a bidder who, among other things, is
> able to provide a timely and cost effective service against the
> established style and production guidelines. Contract terms,
> including length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as
> defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available.
>
>
> RFC Publisher
>
> In the proposed model, the RFC Publisher responsibilities include:
>
> 1. Announce and provide online access to RFCs
> 2. Provide online system to submit RFC Errata
> 3. Provide online access to approved RFC Errata
> 4. Provide backups
> 5. Provide storage and preservation of records
> 6. Authenticate RFCs for legal proceedings
>
>
> Implementation of the RFC publisher function can be pursued in two
> different ways.
> The first alternative is to extend the IETF Secretariat contract to
> include these services. Expenses to support these services would be
> part of the revised contract. The second alternative is a separate
> vendor selected by the IAOC through an RFP process. Expenses to
> support service would be part of the awarded contract.
>
>
> The RFC Editorial Board
>
> Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board. This Board
> will continue as it stands, to support the Independent Submissions
> Editor's review work and provide input and guidance to the RFC
> Editor. The appointment of board members will be the responsibility
> of the Independent Submission Editor. The Independent Submission
> Editor will work with the RFC Editor
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
More information about the rfc-interest
mailing list