[rfc-i] RFC Editor structure
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Sep 16 14:50:44 PDT 2008
On 2008-09-17 01:34, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2008-09-12 04:08, Bob Braden wrote:
>>> SM wrote: *
>>> *> As in any structure, there is a need for accountability. How is the
>>> *> Independent Streams Editor accountable to the community? To whom is
>>> *> the RFC Editor accountable?
>>> The accountability and transparency of the Independent Streams
>>> Editor function are spelled out in some detail in RFC 4846.
>>> Bob Braden
>>> (Current incumbent in the Independent Streams Editor position)
>> My personal view at the moment is that the proposal put forward by
>> Olaf as a consensus candidate is more complicated than necessary.
>> I see nothing in the current model that will cause difficulty in the
>> processing and publication of the variously approved streams defined
>> in RFC 4844. There is a tactical argument for separating out the
>> function so that it could, in theory, be jointly contracted with other
>> IT services such as I-D publication. But that doesn't justify the
>> of the nominal "RFC Editor" warm body as a separate contractual entity.
>> I'd roll that into the Production contract.
> Question is how to pick the RFC Editor to sustain the RFC Series.
The IAB is the guardian of the series. I don't think we *need*
a separate warm body in that role, now that we have clearly separated
out the guardian of the Independent stream.
> the IAOC do it by RFP and see what XYZ, ABC and 123 Corp proffer as the
> Editor, or should there be a community based process by which one is
There's a community based process that selects the IAB, whose charter
already includes oversight of the RFC series (RFC2850 secion 2d). Recent
evidence is that the IAB takes this very seriously.
> I don't know who the companies will propose every 2 - 3 years, but I
> have a high degree of confidence in a community based process to select
> from a significant number of highly qualified individuals, and do so
> time after time.
Well yes. But by adding one more slot to the 12 IAB slots that already
oversee the RFC series, I don't see any win.
> In community hat
>> The big virtue of the proposal is that it *clearly* separates the
>> Independent Submission Editor (and the related Editorial Board)
>> out as a free-standing community-volunteer peer-review activity and
>> I will swallow all the rest to get that result.
>>> 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
>> I belive this description mixes roles. Just make the EB exclusively
>> support the Independent stream.
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest