[rfc-i] Job description and number of hours per week

Ted Hardie ted.ietf at gmail.com
Sat Nov 13 19:58:11 PST 2010


On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> The hours of work fall out of the job description, not the
> other way round.
>

I agree that the number of hours required should be derived
from the job description.  It's not clear to me that this is
actually justified by the current description.

> fwiw I support exactly what the overview says in the extract
> quoted below. Anything less is just an admin role, and we need
> a stronger RFC series than that; I think we have forty years
> of experience to justify that assertion.
>

I think your view of an "admin" role and mine are pretty different.
Some elements of the discussion of responsibilities, like contract
management, seem to me to push it more toward an admin
role and away from the kind of work a senior technical professional
could provide.

In my personal view, that role takes policy decisions or desiderata
from the community and provides concrete methods for how to achieve
them--and then works with the streams to ensure that the recommendations
actually succeed. To take an example, I think there is a long standing agreement
that the RFC series is meant to be an archival series.  But what
that means and how to achieve it have changed a good bit in
the years since RFCs were distributed on paper.  A senior technical
professional engaged in that problem might work on archival media,
storage programs, search index methods, and relationships with
groups that seek to provide online access.

Someone with that background might also work to ensure that our goal of
making the series available for translation was bolstered by, for example,
sponsoring common translations of boilerplate and section headings.
Someone with that background might help us balance the desire to
include figures and complex equations with the desire to make
the series accessible to those who are hearing rather than seeing
the text.

To me, those requires domain-specific expertise.  A senior professional
with that expertise and the appropriate charge from the community
would be a real asset.  Shifting the responsibility for monitoring a contract
to this job and away from the IAOC or IAD is a lot less value, frankly.
(Contract management is, in my understanding, part of what is meant by RFC
Editor oversight in the job description given in this doc, but that is partly
informed by hallway conversations.  Your hallway may differ)

regards,

Ted


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list