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
- Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction surv… Heather Flanagan
- Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satis… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satis… Heather Flanagan
- Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satis… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satis… Дилян Палаузов
- Re: Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction … Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satis… Bob Hinden
- Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satis… Loa Andersson
- Re: Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction … Heather Flanagan