[rfc-i] I-D Action:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Mar 21 13:35:39 PDT 2011
No problem with that Joel, I trust you with the wordsmithing.
On 2011-03-22 09:25, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 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
>>>>> of publication and archiving techniques; the communities that
>>>>> produce and depend on the RFC Series. All of those
>>>>> have been slowly changing to include significant
>>>>> non-native-English populations.Some of them also have a
>>>>> focus on the constraints and consequences of network
>>>>> engineering, rather than a primary interest in the
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>> 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
>> 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