[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Wed Nov 17 06:04:49 PST 2010

Hi Dave,

I'm sorry, I cannot accept your characterization of my (or others') 
comments as being strictly about process.  For example, in my original 
message on this thread, everything after "Particulars" was about the 
content of the document.

For example:  specific issue/suggested path forward:

"8/ This strikes me as being in the category of "idea to consider", but 
it is not adequately motivated in the document, and definitely takes the 
RFC series/editor to new areas:

     4.2.4.  Represent and promote the RFC Series to the outside world

The document notes that this could be expensive in time and resources 
(yes!).  IMO, it might be brought in to the realm of the germane if it 
was reframed in terms of expected IMPACTs, instead of citing the rather 
open possibilities of ACTIVITIES.  I.e., what is the target outcome of 
any such activity?  I'm thinking -- the RSE is expected to raise and 
maintain visibility of the RFC Series in the broader community than the 
IETF.  Period.  Implementation details left to the RSE.



Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 7:20 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>> Let me try this: I don't think I'm urging requirements for Glenn's 
>> report from
>> his activities. I'm sure it's a fine report of his recommendations.
>> I'm urging requirements for the production and shape of the next turn 
>> of the
>> crank on the RFC Editor model, as captured in an RFC.
> Leslie,
> Practically speaking, you (and pretty much everyone else) have actually 
> cast this exercise as an iterative guessing game for Glenn, with only 
> guidance about form and precious little about substance.
> We task the guy with writing something and he talks to lots of people.  
> 8 months later, he produces the requested set of recommendations, within 
> the requested scope.  He gets essentially no commentary on the substance 
> of what he has written except about its deficiencies in form or style.
> The failure to provide any comment on the substance of the report (or 
> its overview) and the failure to provide any statements of concrete 
> preference among possible choices means that he AGAIN has no guidance of 
> what will be acceptable to you or anyone else.
> He spent 8 months guessing what the community wanted.  Different people 
> all say it didn't fly.  Now he gets to guess again.  Again with no real 
> guidance, except as to (a different) form.
> Collaborative review provides feedback on substance as well as form.  It 
> places the critic on the record for what their own preferences are, and 
> possibly even why, and better still if they explain why the current 
> recommendations are not acceptable.
> Instead the dominant feedback Glenn has gotten is that folks won't 
> provide substantive feedback because he didn't show his work or he used 
> too many words, or he included discussion they think should be 
> elsewhere, or... or... or...
> Your original posting had 4 points.  All were about form or process.  
> The closest you came to substance was the suggestion to include only 
> what is immediately essential and defer the rest.  That's actually 
> excellent advice, except you do not tell him what you or I or Ole or 
> Brian or... think is essential.  Call me a skeptic but I suspect we each 
> have different views on this and so now Glenn has another point to 
> navigate and guess, without specific guidance.
> As Brian notes, this effort does not have unbounded time available to it.
> You say "I'm sure it's a fine report of his recommendations."
> You mean you're not sure whether it is or it isn't?
> d/
> ps.  The exchange you are now having with Andrew is, however, might turn 
> into a nice example of getting meaningful discussion on significant 
> substance, but again, your response to him was about process.


      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list