[rfc-i] [IAB] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt)

Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU
Tue Nov 18 07:29:23 PST 2008

>Reading this I realize that we could make one of the responsibilities
>of the Independent Submissions Editor more explicit: "Maintain
>technical quality of the Independent stream". So yes, the technical
>work of that job is the core.

Yes, but note that one of the expressed
purposes of the indsub stream is to publish ideas that may be outside
the current mainstream as defined by the IETF.  So opinions may,
and sometimes do, vary, about technical quality -- one person's
interesting new viewpoint may be another's Terrible Idea.  The indsub
Editor has to balance and make judgements.

>I think it is unfair to assume that most of the burden for the review
>after the edits (AUTH48) is with the Indep. Sub. Ed. It is with the
>authors (with a little oversight by the Editor). Just like in the
>other streams.

Of course, but issues at AUTH48 are, or should be, purely editorial.

>>2. For the independent submission editor,  I note that both
>>editorial skills
>>and competency in English are not requisite qualifications.  Is this
>>3.  I would like the document to clarify the following question.  Is
>>it the
>>job of a series editor to ensure that a document that is passed to the
>>production house meet some minimal criteria for readability?
>>As a member of the current RFC Editorial board, I have review a
>>number of
>>submissions where the clarity of the document was lacking.  I would
>>be loath
>>to say that the Independent Submissions Editor should have passed
>>documents on to the production house to clean up the language
>>problems and

Clarity and language problems are two different issues.  Any competent
editor (and I assume the indsub Editor will be competent as an editor)
can turn pseudo-English into English.  OTOH, a document in flawless
English can be completely obscure. Helping authors to see where
to add clarity can be a lot of work, which falls partly on the indsub
Editor and partly on the individual reviewers.

>Jim wrote:
>>4.  The statement on funding for the Independent Submissions Editor
>>me.  I believe that this job is currently funded as part of the
>>with ISI.  (Bob, please correct me if I am wrong.)

In principle, my efforts as the current indsub Editor are funded by ISOC.
In practice, the work takes quite a lot more time than ISOC pays for.
I would not be surprised if this situation continued in the post-
competition RFC Editor function, starting in 2010.  OTOH, I think
it would be a mistake to try to make the indsub Editor a totally
voluntary position.

Bob Braden

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list