[rfc-i] REOC membership
ole at cisco.com
Thu Jan 27 07:47:04 PST 2011
Then how about "Publisher"? I know that the term has been (mis-) used
in these discussions, but in common useage the term actually has two
distinct meanings, both of which would work in our case:
1. The person who makes something available to the public
2. The person responsible for the business of publishing
Both definitions may involve some selection and even editing of
material, but generally #2 is much more of a business role than
a content role, and the required steps are handled further down
the chain (book jacket design, marketing, distribution, printing,
copy editing, topic selection...).
Of course #1 in some sense doesn't matter any more since everyone can
be a publisher in that sense and we have plenty of examples of folks
essentially side-stepping our processes for getting documents out,
but that's a) not a problem (perhaps) and b) not something we can
solve with the appointment of an RSE.
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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
> > that.
> 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.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest