[rfc-i] I-D Action:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Mon Mar 21 13:25:35 PDT 2011
In looking at this text, and this question, it seems to me tha the
concept that Olaf put in is actually useful, even if the detail of the
word choice leaves open misinterpretation.
I think it is important to emphasis that the RSE is to look for areas
where the series can be improved, and that such looking should include
careful examination of our sacred cows. It may turn out that they are
good cows, but we should check.
I like the idea of giving a nice clear example.
The wording has to be such taht it does not appear that the RSE is
expected to overturn the accepted approoach, only that he is supposed to
examine it closely. If the RSE thinks there is a problem, that needs to
be brought to the community.
On 3/21/2011 4:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-03-21 23:57, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 11:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision on
>>>> the technical specification series, as it continues to evolve
>>>> beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis;
>>>> its publication-technical environment: slowly changing in terms
>>>> of publication and archiving techniques; the communities that
>>>> produce and depend on the RFC Series. All of those communities
>>>> have been slowly changing to include significant multi-lingual
>>>> non-native-English populations.Some of them also have a primary
>>>> focus on the constraints and consequences of network
>>>> engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering
>>>> issues themselves.
>>> This is waffle. I suggest reducing it to a few words that actually
>>> convey meaning. Also, why would the series evolve beyond 'by engineers
>>> for engineers'? This seems like a very good mantra. I don't think we have
>>> consensus on changing this, do we?
>> To give a bit of background:
>> The words 'by/for engineers' came out of an IAB discussion (where there was quite a difference of opinion) where we discussed what the strategic responsibilities of the RSE should be.
>> The point that the current text is trying to convey is that the mission of the RSE is a broad one and that he or she must develop a vision that may question the current 'givens' (or mantras). The outcome of that exercise may well be that the emphasis needs to remain 'by engineers for engineers' but the point is that these are the questions that an RSE should spend energy on as they are of a strategic nature.
>> The change of the RFC producing and consuming environment to become more and more non-native-English is also an example of a strategic topic that needs thought.
>> It is not the intention that these examples are exclusive, they are intended as indicative.
> I think the reason this text made me gulp is that any such changes are clearly
> ones that could only happen as the result of an extensive consultation
> between the RSE and the community. I really think the text says too much
> and leads to too many questions of interpretation.
> I'd be quite happy if it said
> In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision of the future
> of the series in terms of its scope, its authorship, its audience,
> and its publication technology.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest