[rfc-i] Some comments draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00 and a suggestion
dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Wed Nov 10 18:48:49 PST 2010
On 11/11/2010 10:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 2. Suggestion
> There have been, in the discussion on the list and at the plenary,
> several strong claims about whether the broad construction or the
> narrow construction is the right way to think about the RSE.
I like your note quite a bit and am grateful you sent it. It is pragmatic and
constructive and it encourages dialogue. So, here's an addition to the sequence
that I hope will develop...
For some reason, I feel compelled to press for a different labeling of the
competing types of RSE job: junior versus senior.
Broad versus narrow is not mathematically incorrect, but I think we should use
some terms that provide more help for understanding the implication of the choice.
Here are the associated descriptions and implications that I'll suggest:
The junior model wants the RSE to be only a supervisor of technical editing,
with a focus on cranking out RFCs. They would have no management or executive
duties. They would have essentially no strategic duties. The junior
description leaves duties for attending to the various strategic aspects of the
RFC Editor unassigned.
The senior model wants the RSE to have both tactical and strategic duties,
notably concerned with the aggregation of the RFCs as a series, attending to
both RFC providers and RFC consumers by assessing their needs and ensuring that
changes are initiated to satisfy them. And so on. They would, of course,
provide supervision similar to that described for the junior RSE position.
More information about the rfc-interest