[rfc-i] The "executive management" conundrum
housley at vigilsec.com
Mon Jul 18 18:39:16 PDT 2011
You are correct about the origins of the term in the discussions that lead to RFC 5620. But, the term has lead to confusion while trying to find an RSE and in the discussions of revision to RFC 5620. I just want to avoid the confusion by replacing the term with a description of the things that will be done. You correctly point out that this includes organizational oversight of the RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher. So lets say that.
On Jul 18, 2011, at 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Sorry this is late. I was going to sit the issue out, but some
> events of the last few days seem to argue for revisiting it.
> I agree that "executive management" has caused more confusion
> than it was worth. At the same time, we empirically seem to be
> losing something by getting rid of it.
> Stated in as close to functional terms as I can get, the RFC
> Editor Model (v2 and v1) call for an RSE who manages departments
> (in this case, one or two contractor organizations with their
> own internal leadership and management structures), not
> individual people. Managing at that level --especially with
> limited direct authority-- involves a somewhat different set of
> skills than editing documents or directly managing editors. So
> someone who had been an editor or publisher, even a lead editor,
> or headed a group of editors, might be sufficiently qualified
> but definitely should not be considered an exact match to the
> requirements of the job on the basis of prior experience.
> FWIW, the "executive management" story started out more or less
> right there: someone whose experience included managing
> departments and above, not just individuals who are carrying out
> specific tasks under her direction.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest