Re: [Rfced-future] RSE, RSEA, RSCE, or Ruler Of The Universe?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 05-Aug-21 14:52, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On reflection I concur with Mark. This person isn't editing, they're advising. So, expert seems fine, but Editor just seems historical.

"Consulting Editor" is a status marker. It will look serious on LinkedIn. 
This is highly relevant when trying recruit a good candidate. It's also very descriptive of the role we have been evolving.

As for Mark's point, I think that preferring a term such as "RFC Editor Service" in future would be a good idea. Let the wordsmithing commence.

    Brian

> 
> FWIW, I'm somewhat less attached to rfc-editor.org <http://rfc-editor.org> than mnot is. If we were starting from scratch with a document series 
called "RFC", I doubt we would host it at "rfc-editor.org <http://rfc-editor.org>". OTOH, that seems mostly OBE now.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 6:35 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Let's map out the space. Currently, we have a couple of things that 
are well-defined:
> 
>     * RFC Production Centre -- the people who actually do the editing
>     * RFC Publisher -- other bits (e.g., web site, announcements, legal 
verification)
> 
>     We also have:
>     * RFC Series Consulting Editor -- the person we've been talking about a lot. *Not* in charge of the entities above.
>     * IETF Executive Director -- contracting authority for the RSCE, RPC and RP.
>     * RFC Series Working Group -- where the community/communities come together to figure out things about the series.
>     * RFC Series Approval Board -- oversight of the RSWG, representation of the streams.
> 
>     If we were to draw a diagram around bits of this a la RFC8728 Section 2, I'd be very interested to know what should be inside a box labeled 'RFC Editor'.
> 
>     Looking at draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-00, 'RFC Editor' is used consistently to talk about the set of functions that collectively manages the Series. Calling everything happening the 'RFC Editor' while also having someone whose job title ends in 'Editor' is confusing and arguably misleading to those who aren't steeped in the details of IETF minutia (an ongoing problem, especially for the one part of our work that's actually exposed to non-IETF people on a regular basis).
> 
>     The problem, of course, is that we've invested a lot in 'rfc-editor.org <http://rfc-editor.org>'. Even if we plaster 'The RFC Editor is not a person' in red on the top of that web site, the nature of this role is still going to be confusing if it ends with 'Editor.'
> 
>     So actually, I retract my 'can live with this.' I haven't seen any evidence supporting the notion that people will refuse this position if it doesn't have 'editor' in the title; that seems frankly petty, and if someone were to make it a sticking point for the position, I'd think carefully about whether they're appropriate for the role.
> 
>     Eliot, consider this an objection, please. If we're going to have 'RFC Editor' refer to the function, it should be clearly and absolutely delineated from the component bodies and people.
> 
>     Instead, I would suggest 'RFC Series Consulting Expert' -- same acronym. Much clearer, and still looks nice on someone's resume if that's truly important.
> 
>     Cheers,
> 
> 
>     > On 5 Aug 2021, at 11:13 am, Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >
>     > On 2021-08-05 09:05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>     >> I can *just* live with this.
>     >> I would be much happier if we expunged the phrase 'RFC Editor' from our documents (progressively, of course), as it's going to cause confusion.
>     >
>     > This seems to be a separate issue. If we no longer have a "RFC Editor" *function*, then the title "RFC Series Consulting Editor" may not make much sense anymore.
>     >
>     > But if we'd start expunging the phrase "RFC Editor", what would you replace it with?
>     >
>     > Regards,   Martin.
>     >
>     >
>     >> Cheers,
>     >>> On 4 Aug 2021, at 8:10 pm, Eliot Lear <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> Unless people voice objections, I'll ask Peter to please use this term in the next revision of the draft.
>     >>>
>     >>> Eliot
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> On 03.08.21 00:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>     >>>> I can live with this.  (I am bad at naming, so my actually liking something is largely irrelevant.)
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Yours,
>     >>>> Joel
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On 8/2/2021 6:13 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>     >>>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021, at 01:57, Eliot Lear wrote:
>     >>>>>> I believe someone offered RFC Series Consulting
>     >>>>>> Editor.  Is that something that would work for people?
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> WFM
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>
>     >>> --
>     >>> Rfced-future mailing list
>     >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>     >> --
>     >> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/ <https://www.mnot.net/>
> 
>     --
>     Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/ <https://www.mnot.net/>
> 
>     -- 
>     Rfced-future mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
> 
>