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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Peter should hold on this change until there is consensus, which I am 
not ready to say that there is.

However, I think Mark and Eric, you should reconsider your objections.  
As I have stated, I do not see consensus for advisor.  I do not know if 
we will see consensus for expert, and I would like to get beyond this 
issue.  We are seeking compromise. This person is expected to be an 
editor by profession and to provide that expertise.  We're not hiring 
just any expert.

Eliot

On 05.08.21 04:52, 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.
>
> 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>
>