Re: Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 16 January 2019 21:22 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 31D39130F1B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:22:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 GO50jY02AkL2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF1381292F1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84A53808A; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:22:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id ABEB81CD5; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:22:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9390AE5; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:22:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
cc: ietf@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
In-Reply-To: <1a60f985-eba4-de04-6750-0a4cc9895652@rfc-editor.org>
References: <1a60f985-eba4-de04-6750-0a4cc9895652@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:22:38 -0500
Message-ID: <15152.1547673758@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lJA1avRq58u4aSUscHS4GOiRcQg>
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: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:22:42 -0000
Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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. I appreciate this effort, and I don't want to take away from it. I think that we have a bigger production problem that involves bigger documents. I was recently involved in the ~3month AUTH48 effort around RFC8415 (DHCPv6bis)... The RFC Production Center did a totally awesome job. The question is really: should we be producing such long documents? At 154 pages, it's not even close to what I understand NFSv4 was. Are we any good at this? Are there any processes/proceedures/tools that we could learn from the fiction publishing business? Could we start some of the editing process earlier? Would it help during IESG review? > 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] But, to your question, I suggest that you ask a few extra questions. * How long was it from WGLC to the beginning of AUTH48? (You know how long AUTH48 is, and also how long it was from IESG/ISE approval and AUTH48, but not how many cycles at IESG there were) * Were there outside issues that made it hard to respond to AUTH48 in a timely fashion? For instance, if the document requires a lot of mental context, was it hard to "return" to the document to finish it? * Did the document remain in MISSREF for a long duration? * Were you aware of where the document was in the queue? Did you look? Did you get adequate notice as to when AUTH48 might occur? * Did you have difficulties reaching all authors for approval? -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- 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