[E-impact] Re: Moving draft-various-eimpact-arch-considerations along

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Mark,

Welcome to the program! It looks like you joined about 4 months ago, but your email below is the first mention of I’ve seen
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/eimpact/history/

Happy to share a perspective on your question — I didn’t want to leave your email unanswered.

First, in general, and more so specifically here, I believe foremost the general IETF guidance applies — see https://www.ietf.org/participate/roles/  :
"Document Editors […] Editors are appointed by the Chairs of the group, and it is preferred that the Chairs themselves not serve as document editors to ensure a distinction between the process of providing input to the document and the document text itself.”
Given there are already two chairs, a third chair does not un-chair the other chairs ;-)

Second, the eimpact topic is nuanced and hurdled by multidisciplinary. Even what might seem innocuous (e.g., GHG vs. carbon vs. CO2-equivalent) can be significant. I’d prioritize editors who have done substantive (e.g., day job) work in both environmental sustainability and networking, or at least an editors’ team whose combined experience clearly covers both with enough overlap to collaborate effectively.

Third, may I ask about the benefit you see in appointing a new chair/shepherd “who hasn’t been involved to date,” versus someone with program context? I don’t recall many cases where a chair without prior involvement is brought in to publish a document; how would that interact with the current chairs’ roles?

More broadly, I worry that relying on a small number of people “holding the pen” will introduce implicit biases. It is not like the current pen-holders where openly chosen. Even with the best intentions, limited diversity of perspectives tends to reduce quality. Chairs manage meetings, set and prioritize agendas, guide direction, and edit and help shape text. Rotating those responsibilities only within a relatively small circle of chairs/editors/everything who know process and handshakes can concentrate influence.

Anyway, my €0.017 — hoping this helps you.

Best,

Carlos.

> On Sep 4, 2025, at 8:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I've joined the program as an IAB member, with the purpose of getting the program output published:
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-various-eimpact-arch-considerations/
> 
> One thing that needs to be settled before publication in the author list on the draft; RFC Editor policy is to have a maximum of five authors on a draft, and this far exceeds that.
> 
> I'd like to propose a way to determine who should be authors on the draft, as someone who hasn't been involved to date. I haven't looked at the history yet, but thought I'd highlight how I would approach that decision.
> 
> In general, I think that the authors list should reflect the people who are actively 'holding the pen' on the draft. If their role is primarily editorial, their name should have the 'ed.' qualifier to indicate that they're an editor. Then, people who have contributed to the content of the draft can be acknowledged in a 'contributors' section near the end.
> 
> Please take a moment to consider this and indicate whether this approach is workable in this case; if there's some context that I'm missing that would be good to know.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> -- 
> E-impact mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]