[rfc-i] Draft Secretariat SOW for Community Comment: Deadline 20 May
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Thu May 12 04:03:42 PDT 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> The RFC Editor Model version 2 continue to allow these IETF Secretariat to provide the RFC Publisher function.
The editor model document is in flux. I believe that the current consensus (as captured in draft-kolkman-rse-2011) is that the RSE 'owns' the vendor selection.
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-rse-2011-03#section-2 , specifically: "2.1. Executive Management of the Publication and Production function."
> I believe there is a lot of sense in combining IT for the public face of the IETF with the RFC Publisher. I believe that it has reduced the costs. In the long run, I also believe it will improve the user experience.
I fully agree with the cost reduction argument, and I would think that the RSE would see that too. I would have no problem if in the future the RSE chooses to have the publication function be part of a contract that the IAOC maintains with the Secretariat. But we should not make decision for the future RSE.
Since you mention user experience. Take the example of how to get to a specific RFC: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5620.txt vs http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5620.html vs http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5620.txt. I believe that it is up to the RSE to make some recommendations about and taking the lead in making this a little bit more uniform. IMHO it is not likely that the Production function contract is the most important tool in shaping this, but I do believe that if we take that tool away we are not doing everything to empower the future RSE. I strongly believe that empowerment should be our goal if we want to find a good person.
It is my understanding that the publication contract is currently separate from the Secretariat contract, correct?
- --Olaf (as deeply involved individual but specifically not being the ARSE)
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: This message is locally signed.
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest