[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