[rfc-i] RFC Editor Model: RSE Responsibilities

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Wed Jan 21 11:58:00 PST 2009

>> I understand why this would want to be at a higher, say
>> executive level, and not on day to day management.  But I
>> think the RSE has to have the ability to manage.
> Our notes crossed in the net.  I'd also be happy with
> "exercise  executive-level management".  I completely agree
> that the RFC Series  Editor must have both technical and
> management skills.

For whatever it is worth, "executive-level management"  works
for me.  However, that term implies _line_ management and
clearly includes the capability of firing people and/or
initiating remedial measures, including potentially termination,
of a contract.  If the RSE sees and identifies problems that
don't get fixed, and has "executive-level management"
responsibility and authority, she would not need to go to the
IAD and/or IAOC and say "pretty please, think about doing
something about this".

Independent of what particular words are chosen, the question of
whether the RSE gets authority to go with whatever
responsibilities we try to heap on the job has been one of the
ambiguities (or deficiencies) in the "Model" all along.
Personally, I don't care very much about the words, but I
believe that relationship has to be absolutely clear in both the
Model and in any RFIs/ RFPs that go out.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list