Re: [Rfced-future] [IAB] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

> On 31 Mar 2020, at 9:05 am, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Discussion of changes to how the RFC Editor function is
>>> managed, staffed, and overseen are all within scope. 

^^ former

>> It isn't said whether discussion of the RFC Series itself (and
>> potential changes to it)

^^ latter

>> are in scope. Defining the principles
>> of the series seems like it's more the latter than the former.
> 
> Mark, I can't parse "latter and former" in the above.
> 
>> Could we (Eliot?) come to some determination about whether the
>> latter is in scope or not for this program? I suspect having
>> that well understood -- either way it goes -- will help
>> considerably.
> 
> Definitely.  
> 
> As two tests of the scope question, I may not have correctly
> understood the proposals but, if I have, various people
> including yourself have suggested that IETF Standards Track
> documents (presumably including both technical and procedural
> BCP) and possibly all IETF Stream documents either become living
> documents or be restructured so that each one is complete onto
> itself rather than, as is typical, normatively referencing a
> collection of others.   Independent of the merits of those ideas
> (and other issues with them), such a change might call for a
> radically different structure of the RFC Editor Function and
> probably a different role and set of qualifications for the RSE.

Why so? I'd expect that a professional with the appropriate experience be able to adapt to different publication requirements; after all, we're already a unique "publication", so we're asking someone to learn a lot of lore and publication-specific arcana anyway. Yes, they would have to establish new policies and procedures, and possibly ask for different kinds of resources from the LLC, but it's not like they'll need to spool up a widget manufacturing plant in the process of making those changes.

The part of this role that does seem to be challenging is leading the series in the context of this community -- especially given what appears to be diverging views about what the RFC Series should be -- rather than the specifics of publication. What this program _might_ be able to do is reduce is the inherent pressures that this puts on the RFC Editor, by examining how such decisions are made and the RFC Editors' role in them.


> I have also heard it suggested that, in the absence of an
> incumbent RSE, this would be the right time to split the Series
> up into separately-numbered series for each stream or for the
> IETF stream separate from the others.  That, too, might require
> a different structure and/or a different set of qualifications
> for the RSE.

Personally, I don't think it's the right time for such a change, and I'm a bit surprised to hear it's been suggested.


> So, would those two examples be in scope or not?

I didn't express a preference in the original e-mail, but I'm leaning towards considering discussion of the RFC Series itself out of scope for this effort, for the reasons stated above, and because I'd like our work to remain "difficult", not shift to "impossible". I'm not entirely sure we'll be able to avoid it, though.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/