Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 17 January 2019 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 3E6B4130F12 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:27:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 s5IxTNpxGNSM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B001412D4EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [119.94.174.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37CC31801591; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 03:27:24 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
To: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <1a60f985-eba4-de04-6750-0a4cc9895652@rfc-editor.org>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <851ccb67-d98d-551d-8341-10ec17829c74@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:27:22 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1a60f985-eba4-de04-6750-0a4cc9895652@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YdcPZtmEoypuqKCogPAw9A5ieTE>
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: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:27:30 -0000

Heather,

One thought, when a document is published as an RFC it is certainly
important and interesting to get the authors opinion on the production
center, so this part of this I support-

However I guess that most of the document that is edited and handled by
the production center are working group documents. The revision control
for a working group document is with the working group, so I think it
would be equally important and interesting to get the opinions of
Document Shepherds and working group chairs.

/Loa

On 2019-01-16 23:21, Heather Flanagan 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:
> 
>  1. Did the editing service provided by the RFC Editor improve the
>     quality of your document? [Yes|No]
> 
>  2. What one thing would make the editing process easier or more
>     effective? [Free form text]
> 
>  3. 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
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64