[rfc-i] RFC Editor structure
Bob Braden
braden at ISI.EDU
Thu Sep 25 10:56:02 PDT 2008
Olaf,
Abstractly, what has happened is this: the IAB and IAOC wished to break the
unitary RFC Editor function into modular pieces, for maximum flexibility in
contracting them out. As every computer scientist knows, successful
modularization requires breaking at boundaries across which communication
is minimal and well defined. Breaking off the Independent Submission
Editor function seemed like a slam dunk for modularization. But, to my
surprise, at least, we come to realize that the Editorial Board, regardless
of whether it is formally or (as currently) informally established, breaks
the modularity! Your solution was to make two separate Editorial Boards,
one for each side of the boundary. (You would presumably give them
different names). Others (like me) thought this was getting baroque, but
maybe it is necessary.
You seem to be concluding that we CANNOT split off the indsub review
function, that it is inextricably bound up with the RFC Editor
function. Actually, I don't think I believe that. The only binding is
through the dual role of the Editorial Board(s).
My solution would be to proceed with splitting the indsub review function
from the RFC Editor function, to acknowledge that each may (or should be
encourage to) form an advice-giving body that is broadly representative of
relevant community expertise, and leave it at that. If they are wise, the
RFC Editor and the indsub Editor will make a common Editorial Board, but it
would a mistake to legislate further at that level.
I am much less convinced about the modularity of production vs. publication
functions.
Bob Braden
More information about the rfc-interest
mailing list