This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
start [2013/07/07 13:04] rsewikiadmin Revision of priorities |
start [2022/06/10 11:30] (current) arusso |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ==== Immediate | + | **NOTE: This wiki is an archive of RFC Series Editor (RSE) pages created from 2012-2019.\\ |
+ | For current information, | ||
+ | |||
+ | --------------------------- | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Priorities | ||
- [[rfcformat|RFC Format]] | - [[rfcformat|RFC Format]] | ||
- | - [[rfcpublisher|Review | + | - [[fifty|Fifty Years of RFCs]] |
- | - [[stylemanualrfc|Style Manual RFC]] | + | - [[stylemanualrfc|2019 Update of Style Manual RFC]] |
- | - [[stylemanualweb|Style Manual web]] | + | - [[outreach|Develop an outreach plan]] |
- | - [[website|RFC Editor website]] | + | - Clarify issues around Streams and Statuses |
- | - [[newstream|New Stream]] | + | - [[satsurvey|Customer Satisfaction Survey experiment]] |
+ | - Revise SLA (possibly a 2020 item) | ||
==== The RSE Project List ==== | ==== The RSE Project List ==== | ||
- | === Small projects (1-6 months from start) === | + | === Small-sized |
- | ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | + | ^ Priority |
- | | [[acronym|Acronym review]] | The currently | + | | C | [[acronym|Acronym review]] | The current |
+ | | A | [[fifty|Fifty Years of RFCs]] | RFC to document and other announcements in relation to the fiftieth anniversary of RFC 1 | September 2018 | | ||
- | === Medium projects (6-18 months from start of project) === | + | === Medium-sized |
- | ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | + | ^ Priority |
- | | [[archive|Archival review]] | Review of archival process and policy for the Series | | | + | | A | [[auth48|AUTH48 changes]] | can we improve efficiency of AUTH48 process by potentially clarifying policy and implementing new tools to streamline the process? |
- | | [[auth48|AUTH48 changes]] | can we improve efficiency of AUTH48 process by potentially clarifying policy and implementing new tools to streamline the process? | + | | B | [[errata|Errata process review]] | submitting errata and citing errata is non-trivial and the overall process around the errata service needs to be reviewed | | |
- | | [[errata|Errata process review]] | submitting errata and citing errata is non-trivial and the overall process around the errata service needs to be reviewed | | | + | | C | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are not indexed in online indexes such as: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore | | |
- | | [[rfcpublisher|Review of RFC Publisher function]] | the RFC Publisher must be a self-contained entity, capable of being moved independent of Production Center; find out where the tools and processes exist that interfere with that independence. | + | | C | [[shortlivedref|Short-lived references]] | some references might not be long-lived enough from an archival perspective, |
- | | [[DOI|DOI assignment]] | DOI assignments have been requested for RFCs as a way to improve the scholarly reputation of the Series | | + | | B | [[citation|Citation Library Updates]] | Formalize |
- | | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are not indexed in online indexes such as: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar | + | | A | [[satsurvey|Customer Satisfaction Survey experiment]] | Develop |
- | | [[shortlivedref|Short-lived references]] | some references might not be long-lived enough from an archival perspective, | + | |
- | | [[stats|Statistics and Metrics]] | look at more effective ways to report on RFC stats and determine if/how this fits in to current SLA | | | + | |
- | | [[stylemanualrfc|Style Manual RFC]] | Update of current accepted practice to be published as a new RFC | February 2012 | | + | |
- | | [[stylemanualweb|Style Manual web]] | Creation of proto-policies, | + | |
- | | [[website|RFC Editor website]] | update content, look and feel to the RFC Editor website. | + | |
- | === Large projects (18+ months) === | + | === Large-sized |
- | ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | + | ^ Priority |
- | | [[rfcformat|RFC Format]] | Determine the future of images, character encoding, and archival format | March 2012 | | + | | A | [[rfcformat|RFC Format]] | Determine the future of images, character encoding, and archival format | March 2012 | |
- | | [[newstream|New Stream]] | Determine | + | | B | [[EFL|EFL Author support]] | Work with RPC, community to find ways to support EFL authors more effectively | ongoing |
+ | | B | [[rfced-infrastructure|Infrastructure/ | ||
+ | | B | [[outreach|Outreach]] | Create an outreach plan for the RFC Editor | ongoing | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Potential projects (to be discussed and prioritized) ==== | ||
+ | | | [[updating-ref|References as metadata]] | Discuss with RPC, community potential value/cost of turning RFC references in to metadata that would be periodically updated (without republishing the RFC) | | ||
+ | | | [[xml-outsource|Outsourcing XML review]] | Should the review of the XML file be outsourced? | | ||
+ | | | [[metadata-preservation|Understanding the role of metadata in digital preservation]] | Review of digital preservation policy and existing RFC metadata | | ||
+ | | | [[context-search|Search response improvements ]] | Providing additional context to search returns, e.g., pointers to WG | | ||
+ | | | [[exp-RFC|Create an experimental space for RFC formats or features ]] | Consider having a place to test new formats or features for RFCs | | ||
+ | | | [[code|RFC Source Code Repository]] | Research issues around the creation of a source code repository for the RFC Series | | | ||
+ | | | [[EU-ICT|EU-ISA]] | Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) and the RFC Series | | | ||
Line 43: | Line 55: | ||
| Copyright| update the info on the copyright page | Page updated 14-Feb-2012 | | | Copyright| update the info on the copyright page | Page updated 14-Feb-2012 | | ||
| Author Overload | guidance required on number and categories of contributors to an RFC. | Policy doc withdrawn | | | Author Overload | guidance required on number and categories of contributors to an RFC. | Policy doc withdrawn | | ||
+ | | [[newstream|New Stream]] | Determine the criteria and process for adding a new stream to the RFC Series | Proposal submitted by the ISE to have new stream docs go through the Independent Submissions stream (see wiki page) | | ||
+ | | [[rfcpublisher|Review of RFC Publisher function]] | the RFC Publisher must be a self-contained entity, capable of being moved independent of Production Center; find out where the tools and processes exist that interfere with that independence. | ||
+ | | [[stylemanualrfc|Style Manual RFC]] | Update of current accepted practice to be published as a new RFC | revised style guide approved for publication April 2014 | | ||
+ | | [[stylemanualweb|Style Manual web]] | Creation of proto-policies, | ||
+ | | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are now properly indexed in Google Scholar | August 2014 | | ||
+ | | [[DOI|DOI assignment]] | DOI assignments have been requested for RFCs as a way to improve the scholarly reputation of the Series | DOIs added April 2015 | | ||
+ | | [[website|RFC Editor website]] | update content, look and feel to the RFC Editor website. | New site published October 2015 | | ||
+ | | [[stats|Statistics and Metrics]] | automating stats reporting | moved into production in July 2016| | ||
+ | | [[dig-sig|Digital Signatures]] | digitally signing RFCs | project shelved due to concerns re: revocation October 2016 | | ||
+ | | [[dig-arc-pol|Digital Archive Policy]] | develop framework for how to handle digital preservation | two partnerships (National Library of Sweden, Computer History Museum) in place; RFC 8153 published | | ||
+ | |||
==== Other Information ==== | ==== Other Information ==== | ||
* Tracking [[digstorage|digital storage]] industry trends | * Tracking [[digstorage|digital storage]] industry trends | ||
+ | * [[author_id|Identifiers for authors]] | ||