[rfc-i] Motivation and experience

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sat Nov 13 02:31:02 PST 2010


At 9:34 PM -0500 11/10/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>c.  Motivation
>
>In contrast to the history outline, the actual experiences of the TRSE
>over the course of his tenure seem to me to be the sort of thing that
>nobody else could provide.  Those experiences would be valuable
>evidence with respect to the proposals.  For instance, the draft
>recommends that the broad construction of the RSE is the right one,
>and makes recommendations about how to alter the RSE job so that it is
>a more effective instantiation of that broad construction.  But there
>is not enough evidence in the draft for a reader to evaluate whether
>the broad construction is the right one.  Neither is there enough
>evidence in the draft for a reader to evaluate whether the specific
>recommendations would actually achieve the desired goal.  So more
>reporting of those experiences, and analysis of them, would be a
>valuable addition to the document.

Inclusion of "actual experiences" was requested by multiple people at the mic on Monday, and I didn't get up to say "yes, please" because it seemed so obvious (and so obviously lacking). Good starting points might include:

- In Glenn's report #4 from July 19 (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/TransitionalRSE_Report4_Wk20.pdf>), he said that he would produce a summary report and analysis of the "C65" experience where an author asked for many editorial changes during AUTH48 that required a lot of review and changes to multiple documents. That information could help explain some of the proposed changes to the RSE model. Fortunately, the document author who asked for the changes is also on this list, so the rest of us can get a fuller picture of the interactions and thus draw better conclusions.

- Any RSE interactions with the Production Center that would lead to the draft's conclusion that the RSE, not the IAOC, should be responsible for hiring and firing the Production Center.

- Any experience at all to indicate that the current model for the Publisher (as a separate entity) is a good or bad idea.


--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list