[rfc-i] RSE role
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Jan 20 00:45:29 PST 2011
On 19.01.2011 20:54, Ted Hardie wrote:
> So, I think the key point here is that cross-stream coordination role
> that the RSE has is specific to editorial and publications points,
> since content has been explicitly ruled out. Leading discussions on
> those points actually requires pretty significant expertise with them,
> or the policy that's returned may be unimplementable and/or way out of
> the mainstream.
> Ideal from at least my perspective is someone who has both that
> experience and IETF experience, but that's a pretty limited set and
> the number of hours/pay may well make it the null set. So we're left
> with the question: is it easier to grow a member of the community in
> this domain, or easier to get someone with this domain knowledge to
> build a reputation inside the community? As long as we're clear that
> we want the intersection at the end of the day, I think we can reach
> this point, but it will take time either way.
> My personal take is that absent the ideal case, it will be better to
> hire someone with publication experience and grow their knowledge of
> the community they will serve. The risk in the other direction is
> that we will have a respected member of the community who becomes
> increasingly familiar with the way we already do publication, with
> little to know exposure to how others do it. That might limit our
> ability to evolve the series to meet new needs.
+1 on the analysis in general.
On the choice between these two extremes, I'm not that sure. Having IETF
experience *would* be good; maybe Glenn could inform us about how long
it took him to get up to speed about how things happen here.
On the other hand, I'd *also* appreciate an non-IETF point of view. I
think one of the problems the future RSE will have to address *will* be
publication formats, and for that it certainly is important not to start
with a "we always did it this way" attitude.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest