[rfc-i] RESEND: RFC Editor Model Version 5 and revised RSE SOW
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Apr 25 13:08:50 PDT 2009
On 2009-04-25 23:52, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> On 25 apr 2009, at 00:32, Jim Schaad wrote:
>> I have two concerns that I would like to register with the latest draft.
> Thanks Jim,
>> 1. In the dispute resolution chain, if one has a conflict between say
>> publishing house and the production center, and a single entity has the
>> contract for both the production center and the RSE - Should the RSE
>> actually be the final authority on all dispute resolutions? One assumes
>> that there would be no actual appeal for the Publisher in this case as
>> RSE would have been involved in direct negotiations with the production
> I understand your concern.
> The dispute resolution as it is written down now puts the decision with
> the RSE and the above case could indeed happen.
> However, when disputes happen they are 'registered' with the RSAG (who
> cannot immediately influence _that_ decision, except with advice). The
> registered disputes are reported to the IAB who in their oversight role
> could establish whether there is a pattern of acting in bad faith.
That is far too weak an approach IMHO. Firstly, what on earth does
If the Series Editor decision is not satisfactory, then the the
matter must be registered with the RFC Series Advisory Group.
actually mean? Either an appeal decision is appealed to the RSAG, or
it isn't. In fact, it can't be, since the RSAG isn't superior to
the RSE. So this adds no value. Also, the sentence is in the passive
tense - who decides a decision is unsatisfactory, and who causes the
'registering' to occur? The whole process is wishy-washy, and doesn't
give the oversight body *any* power whatever to intervene in bad
decisions (except by causing the RSE to be fired, I suppose).
There's no need to reinvent a new form of wheel. Just cut and paste
from section 3.5 of RFC4071. That defines a very clear procedure with
More information about the rfc-interest