[rfc-i] Public face for the RFC series

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Wed Jan 21 09:43:36 PST 2009


Hi,

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 11:52 AM -0500 1/21/09, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>> As a general comment on the direction of this discussion, it seems
>> to be moving
>> 
>> 1/ from a starting point of the RSE being a single person, part
>> time, perhaps an academic taking this on as a visible role
>> 
>> 2/ to a full on institution in its own right, with software
>> development and systems responsibility etc.
> 
> Agree.
> 
>> With respect, I think the latter is setting up a component that
>> will naturally be in opposition to the other components in the
>> model,
> 
> Disagree. "Executive-level management" does not necessarily mean "in
> opposition".

To be clear:  I don't think executive-level management pushes it there, 
at all.  I do think that pushing ownership (and development) of 
software, systems and so on, *is* putting it on that trajectory.
> 
>> and is creating a type of position (institution) that is
>> unfillable.
> 
> Also disagree. The single person might be an academic who knows how
> to manage small software projects (the tools in question require
> creativity in design but not any huge engineering effort), or that
> person might also be part of one of the two other roles.

The intersection of "people who know enough about writing, documents, 
document series and publications to know what it takes to maintain a 
worthwhile technical publication series" and "people who can manage a 
software development project of any size" is much smaller than I believe 
is interesting to consider.

> 
>> I'd (personally) like to draw the line at:  the RSE is the
>> public-facing PERSON for the RFC series, and as such they must be
>> involved in discussions of tools and public-facing materials
>> developed and operated by the other components.
> 
> That would be great if the SOWs for the other two roles reflect that.

Noted -- and I believe (hope) the updates that have been made based on 
the discussion here so far will reflect it adequately.  As soon as the 
revisions are finished/published, I look forward to hearing if you can 
agree.

Leslie.

> For example, the SOWs could have the production house and publisher
> create an initial set of tools; those tools would be reviewed by the
> RSE and the community; there might be rounds of incremental
> improvement that are funded through IASA or done with volunteer
> effort.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium
> 

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list