This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
start [2018/07/06 15:37] rsewikiadmin changed priority of AUTH48 changes |
start [2022/06/10 11:30] (current) arusso |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ==== Immediate Priorities | + | **NOTE: This wiki is an archive of RFC Series Editor |
- | | + | For current information, |
+ | --------------------------- | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Priorities for 2019 (in order) ==== | ||
+ | - [[rfcformat|RFC Format]] | ||
+ | - [[fifty|Fifty Years of RFCs]] | ||
+ | - [[stylemanualrfc|2019 Update of Style Manual RFC]] | ||
+ | - [[outreach|Develop an outreach plan]] | ||
+ | - Clarify issues around Streams and Statuses | ||
+ | - [[satsurvey|Customer Satisfaction Survey experiment]] | ||
+ | - Revise SLA (possibly a 2020 item) | ||
==== The RSE Project List ==== | ==== The RSE Project List ==== | ||
Line 8: | Line 18: | ||
^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | ^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | ||
| C | [[acronym|Acronym review]] | The current list of approved acronyms (one that do not need to be expanded in RFC) needs to be reviewed and brought up to date or entirely discarded | | | | C | [[acronym|Acronym review]] | The current list of approved acronyms (one that do not need to be expanded in RFC) needs to be reviewed and brought up to date or entirely discarded | | | ||
+ | | A | [[fifty|Fifty Years of RFCs]] | RFC to document and other announcements in relation to the fiftieth anniversary of RFC 1 | September 2018 | | ||
Line 13: | Line 24: | ||
^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | ^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^ | ||
| A | [[auth48|AUTH48 changes]] | can we improve efficiency of AUTH48 process by potentially clarifying policy and implementing new tools to streamline the process? | | A | [[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 | January 2015 | | + | | 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 | | |
- | | C | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are not indexed in online indexes such as: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar | + | | C | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are not indexed in online indexes such as: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore | | |
| C | [[shortlivedref|Short-lived references]] | some references might not be long-lived enough from an archival perspective, | | C | [[shortlivedref|Short-lived references]] | some references might not be long-lived enough from an archival perspective, | ||
| B | [[citation|Citation Library Updates]] | Formalize RFC Editor support of the citation library | | | | B | [[citation|Citation Library Updates]] | Formalize RFC Editor support of the citation library | | | ||
- | | C | [[EU-ICT|EU-ISA]] | Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) and the RFC Series | | | + | | A | [[satsurvey|Customer Satisfaction Survey experiment]] | Develop |
- | | C | [[code|RFC Source Code Repository]] | Research issues around the creation of a source code repository for the RFC Series | + | |
Line 26: | Line 35: | ||
| A | [[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 | | ||
| B | [[EFL|EFL Author support]] | Work with RPC, community to find ways to support EFL authors more effectively | ongoing | | B | [[EFL|EFL Author support]] | Work with RPC, community to find ways to support EFL authors more effectively | ongoing | ||
- | | B | [[rfced-infrastructure|Infrastructure/ | + | | B | [[rfced-infrastructure|Infrastructure/ |
+ | | B | [[outreach|Outreach]] | Create an outreach plan for the RFC Editor | ongoing | ||
Line 33: | Line 43: | ||
| | [[xml-outsource|Outsourcing XML review]] | Should the review of the XML file be outsourced? | | | | [[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 | | | | [[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 | | + | | | [[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 | | | | [[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 48: | Line 59: | ||
| [[stylemanualrfc|Style Manual RFC]] | Update of current accepted practice to be published as a new RFC | revised style guide approved for publication April 2014 | | | [[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, | | [[stylemanualweb|Style Manual web]] | Creation of proto-policies, | ||
- | | [[archive|Digital Preservation Policy]] | Review of archival process and policy for the Series | + | | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are now properly indexed in Google Scholar |
| [[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 | | | [[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 | | | [[website|RFC Editor website]] | update content, look and feel to the RFC Editor website. | New site published October 2015 | | ||
Line 54: | Line 65: | ||
| [[dig-sig|Digital Signatures]] | digitally signing RFCs | project shelved due to concerns re: revocation October 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 | | | [[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 | | ||
+ | |||