Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Mike,

Many thanks.  Those probably are, indeed, the high points.

It also illustrates one other point that various of us have been
trying to make.  Mike's surgical job on my test could be
considered the work of a very skilled editor with subject matter
expertise, making a probably over-long document more readable.
In the case of the RFC Series and professional journals in,
e.g., computing and computer networks, we identify that subject
matter expertise as "technical" and call such a person a
"technical editor"... with the equivalent to a job that Mike did
requiring a very skilled one of those.  Nothing that Mike did
would be described as copy-editing.  Indeed, his result is
almost as much in need of a copy editor as my original was.
And, finally, the role of someone in a role like the RSE wrt my
document and Mike's edits/ condensation would be to decide
whether the Series preference should be for bullet points (like
Mike's example) or more extensive and better supported (but
likely much longer) prose (more like my original) and then to
try to figure out how to set stylistic guidelines, educate
people, etc., to support that preference (or to not decide at
all, leaving the choice up to individual authors or documents).  

That is just one type of example, but it illustrates the
difference between copy editing, technical editing (in the case
of the RFC Series, at a far higher level of text changes and
reorganization than we've seen since Jon Postel passed away and
rarely even then), and the Series strategic leadership role that
we've traditionally expected of the RSE.

best,
   john


--On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:18 -0400 Michael StJohns
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi - John's note makes a lot of different very good points,
> and he does note that some could be made on one of the other
> threads.  I've extracted a few points that are particularly
> germane to the SOW thread primarily for emphasis and added
> ellipsis to shrink some of those hopefully without changing
> meaning.  I recommend all of you read John's original post -
> but if you don't have the time, this at least attempts to pull
> out points that frame the role of the RSE and the depth of the
> problem we're going to have finding a new one.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 7/16/2019 10:38 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> 
>>  *
>>     Unless "we" are trying to make changes in how the RFC
>>     Editor Function works that go far beyond what is (or is
>>     not) in what is in the draft SOW, there have been several
>>     misconceptions in this thread and the related ones.
>> 
>>  *
>>     This is not a
>>     copy-editing role.  it is not even a technical editing
>>     role.
>> 
>>  *
>>     Instead, this is a strategic leadership and management
>>     role.  In retrospect, maybe we would have less confusion
>>     about, e.g., copy editing, if we had called the position
>>     "RFC Series Publisher" when we made up the "RSE" title,
>>     but, given how few people seem to understand what a
>>     publisher actually does, maybe it would have made no
>>     difference.
>> 
>>  *
>>     If the RSOC and IAB are looking for someone who will
>>     quietly do the job, follow their lead about strategy
>>     directions, and not try to educate (and, if necessary,
>>     push back based on greater specialist expertise, then
>>     they are making a really fundamental change in the role.
>> 
>>  *
>>     Something Nevil didn't mention was that plausible
>>     candidates were not easy to find, even with no incumbent
>>     to compete against.
>> 
>>  *
>>     Unless we are making significant changes to the role, the
>>     RSE should probably be seen as less even responsible to
>>     the IAB and RSOC on day to day details than the IETF LLC
>>     Executive Director is to the LLC Board.
>> 
>>  *
>>       For a position like this, even describing the
>>     position search a and process as a "bid" is offensive and
>>     likely to convince some people we would like to have as
>>     candidates to say "they either don't understand what they
>>     are doing or are not interested in anyone like me" and
>>     then move on.
>> 
>>   * Olaf obviously had a great deal of IETF
>>   experience....However,he did not ... have the
>>     depth of technical and standards publishing,and publishing
>>     strategy, experience ... I think it was very important
>>     ... that he did have an RSOC that contained multiple
>>     people with at least significant pieces of those types of
>>     experience. That RSOC saw its missionmuch more in terms
>>     of supporting him and helping him succeed in the role --
>>     including giving advise on the strategic publication
>>     issues to which he was happy to listen-- than as
>>     "oversight" or supervision or evaluation of contractual
>>     compliance.
>> 
>>  *
>>     More generally, putting someone into the RSE role --either
>>     "acting" or semi-permanently -- who has good community
>>     experience and relationships, little or no strategic
>>     publication leadership perspective and experience, and
>>     without the support of in-depth expertise in the RSOC (or
>>     some other arrangement to which a supportive RSOC is
>>     prepared to defer in matters of expertise) is a recipe
>>     for disaster... or at least major changes in the
>>     character of the Series whether intentional or not and
>>     whether reflecting community consensus or not.
>> 
>> 
>