[rfc-i] Overview document available

Glenn Kowack Glenn at RiverOnce.com
Sun Nov 7 15:58:18 PST 2010

On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:36 AM, SM wrote:

> Hi Glen,
> I'll start by thanking you once again for making the regular reports publicly available and for the smooth transition.

The vast majority of success year-to-date with the new model and its transition is due to all the people working to make it go: streams and stream approvers, entity leadership, and especially production center and other folks doing the day-to-day work.

> I haven't seen any reports from the ISE but that's a different story.

Nevil (ISE) doesn't have any requirement that I know of to produce reports regularly or otherwise.  However, I think this is a fine idea, in some form or other.  Perhaps Nevil will like to comment about this (and how I'm nudging him toward doing more work :-)).  Let's all remember that the ISE is completely independent of the Series Editor (my current role) and that these are just brainstorms.  His call entirely.

> At 20:05 06-11-10, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand.  Can you ask this question a bit more narrow or differently?
> The Overview PDF mentions "must provide the overall leadership and management of RFC Editor functions".  Can that be done under RFC 5620 or should there be a change for that to be possible?

As you've probably already noticed in the published documents so far (the draft and the Overview), and I hope you'll see/hear at tonight's plenary, my reading of 5620 is that it's ambiguous about things like this.  Or just not distinct enough to give the Series Editor a clear mandate.  So, what I'm doing here, and very often in my recommendations, is providing clarifications within the range of possibilities available within 5620.  I'm of course basing those on the previous 8 months of direct RSE experience.

>> SM - you're asking about this during my tenure as TRSE yes?  During this period (starting 1 March), no issues were brought to the IAB.
> Yes, it is during your tenure as TSRE.  Thanks for the answer.


>> Re RSAG comment, I don't muzzle the RSAG, but when, where and how they should comment, and to whom, is below the level of the draft, except they are expected to interact with the IAB as described.
> Ok.
>> In short, I did not want to create situations in which the different parties, including possible the
>> RSE,  might feel the need to put pressure on the ISE.  That could threaten the ISE's independence, which is unacceptable.  An alternative might be to add RFC-Editor oriented
>> submission processes to the ISE's practices; I think the same problems independence
>> problems could result.  From the draft, Section 10. "Re-Establishing an RFC Editor Stream Capability":
> It is good to apply the same yardstick to others as what we would apply to ourselves.  If the RSE cannot "talk to" the ISE and get work then, it becomes a problem.  Solving the problem of RSE RFC publication by creating a new stream is a politically correct alternative.

I hadn't thought of it that (PC) way - and I'm not completely sure what that means in this environment.  I found a variety of opinions on this (although leaning in this direction), and chose this approach to highlight a "most clarifying" approach - within an acceptable load of doing new work, creating new structure, and so on.  After 7:30 Beijing tonight, once I've represented my observations and recommendations, community process will decide how to go forward, or not, with this.

> My preference is not to take that path.  If you believe it is the better choice, I'll defer to you on this.

I do, but let's see what community debate yields.  Certainly many discoveries in store.

Excellent thoughts here, SM.



> Regards,
> -sm 

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list