[rfc-i] REOC membership
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Jan 27 07:10:24 PST 2011
On 1/25/11 7:33 PM, Glenn Kowack wrote:
> I was going to say "it doesn't really matter", especially because we have adopted a strategy
> of figuring out various details, and only when we've nailed down all those details do we slap
> a label on them.
> However, on reflection, using REOC seems somewhat less error-prone.
> If we call it RSOC, somewhere, sometime, some folks are going to think that means
> "RSE Oversight Committee" (as in: RFC Series Editor Oversight Committee) only to find out
> quite some time later that they've got the entire scope wrong; a real disservice to the required
> breadth of the oversight function -- and far too much focus strictly on the RSE, which would be
> counterproductive as well.
> So, REOC seems the safer, less error-prone label. (I've tried to find similar sorts of mis-
> interpretations of REOC, but have yet to find one.)
> Also, I'm reminded that we rarely refer to the "RFC Series", except in a few rather formal
> references. In practicse, we refer to the "RFC Editor". So REOC is a bit more in line with
I'm going to push back on this a bit because it makes an assumption that
I think is false. We call it the "RFC Editor" and "RFC Editor function"
in the current documents because of history, not because of clarity. Jon
was the RFC Editor because it was a single person. Jon-and-Joyce-and-Bob
were called the "RFC Editor" because we didn't do a name change at the
time. When we split out the roles a few years ago, we added "function"
but didn't get rid of "Editor" because we had much bigger things to debate.
If the RSE is not going to be an editor (and I still think Glenn's idea
of having him/her "edit a document now and then for quality-monitoring
purposes" would do much more harm to the series than any possible
benefit), then this is a very good time to get "Editor" out of our
vocabulary. We care about the series, not about the
editor-who-doesn't-actually-edit-anymore. Yes, the "E" in REOC is
"safer" historically, but it is more error-prone, not less.
More information about the rfc-interest