Re: Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher

Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 01 February 2019 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E92712008F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 06:07:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94GCKiz_ZJMA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 06:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED60812426A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 06:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553D81C415B; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 06:06:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MZkUPko0xtsG; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 06:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.198.42.38] (c-71-231-216-10.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [71.231.216.10]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13CB41C414F; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 06:06:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_60EE9060-106D-4042-8EBE-56240784D951"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 06:07:13 -0800
References: <1a60f985-eba4-de04-6750-0a4cc9895652@rfc-editor.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <1a60f985-eba4-de04-6750-0a4cc9895652@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <D841CBCC-4B1C-4589-9944-21CF0A83AB41@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MbgGXq-AMyu9x19YmvQo6bSN-K0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 14:07:17 -0000

Thank you all for your feedback!

My takeaways from this are that there is some interest in seeing the survey expanded, both in terms of questions for earlier stages in the process and who receives the survey at the time the RFC is published. 

I’ve reached out to the stream managers to let them know there is some interest in a broader survey (or, if not a survey, something that allows the collection of more feedback in the pre-approval process), as it might be something they want to consider. Pre-RFC Editor stages are beyond purview as RSE, and I think adding more questions about the earlier stages in the process will lose the point of helping me and the RSOC evaluate the vendor performing the work of the RPC and Publisher (an important aspect of doing this kind of survey).

I will start sending out the surveys this month, and I will include information in the RSE report for Prague regarding how well the survey is being received and what kind of feedback I’m getting.

Thanks for the discussion!
Heather

> On Jan 16, 2019, at 7:21 AM, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello community,
> 
> In order to get a better sense of how well the RFC Production Center and Publisher are serving the needs of authors, I would like to start sending out a short survey to authors immediately after the publication of their RFC starting on February 1, 2019. Participation in the survey is entirely optional, but the expectation is that requesting feedback immediately after publication will be more effective than the current process of randomly selecting a percentage of authors who have published in the previous year and asking them to recollect what did and did not work for them.
> 
> The proposed questions in the survey are:
> 
> Did the editing service provided by the RFC Editor improve the quality of your document? [Yes|No]
> What one thing would make the editing process easier or more effective? [Free form text]
> May we contact you to discuss your suggestions or concerns further? [Yes|No]
> The RSE (me) will review the feedback and include aggregated results in my reports published during IETF meetings. This fits with the expectations of the RSE role as described in RFC 6635 (see Section 2.1.1. "Strategic Leadership and Management of the Publication and Production Functions")
> 
> The survey will be handled via SurveyMonkey initially, though this may change in the future if we decide to either take it in-house or use a different service.
> 
> If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions regarding this activity, please let me know!
> 
> Heather Flanagan, RSE
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest