[Rfced-future] More questions?

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

[I've been staying quiet not so much because I haven't anything to say, 
but because I've said so much over the last 6 - 8 months on this 
subject.   Here are the items I believe haven't yet been considered.]

Questions:

What level of conflicts of interest are we going to be comfortable with 
going forward?  [Jon/Bob/Joyce all worked for a non-profit organization 
and their funding for the RFC process was pretty much without strings. 
Heather was not originally from our community and AFAIK didn't have any 
contracts that would have placed her in conflict. John is active in the 
IETF and has an ISOC board position along with - I believe but could be 
wrong - other contracts directly related to IETF work.  ]

What LOE for the RSE will our choices of responsibility prescribe?   
[The RSE has generally costed out as just a little over 1/2 FTE - that 
could vary substantially based on how the RSE model is scoped and divided]

What are the appropriate roles for the technical leadership of the IETF 
(e.g. IAB/IESG) vs appropriate roles for the administrative leadership 
(e.g. LLC Board and IETF Trust) with respect to the RSE/RFC series/RPC?

Would a different home for the RFC series other than the IETF be 
appropriate (e.g. ISOC or ICANN)?

Are there associations of publishers of academic and standards documents 
that the IETF/RSE should consider being a part of (and for that matter 
external publication standards to adhere to )?

Problems:

The selection criterias for the IAB and IESG do not include the skills 
of contract/employee oversight and the devolution of responsibility for 
the RSE from the IAB to the RSOC did not cure this problem.  Management 
of the RSE/RPC by committees of the IESG/IAB  or their designees should 
probably be a last resort. [The IETF is changing into more of a 
business-like entity with permanent employees and control of its own 
finances; perhaps take advantage of that with a look at the general 
model for non-profit publishing  - maybe as part of the RSE's role. ]


Observation: 
https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future/blob/master/PossibleGoalsandPointsMade.md 
needs to be sorted into tactical and strategic and the tactical items 
(e.g. time to process, XML implementations, etc) should be deferred with 
prejudice until we deal with what the RSE actually is/should be/will 
be.  Those items might provide some flavor to the discussion, but 
seriously - if you need someone with XML skills to work the project for 
a time, you let the RSE make a selection and you hire them for a time.

Observation:  Focus on the role vs focus on what we want the series to 
be.  These aren't either/or items, but the discussion is going to be 
more efficient if we focus on one or the other.  In any event, the items 
listed as "Do focus on what we want the series to be" are really bug 
reports rather than "what we want the series to be".

Instead:

World facing and focused publication vs "The Journal of the IETF"  (aka 
"Who are the customers that should have a say?")

Publication for revenue vs freely available (e.g. IEEE model vs current 
IETF model)

Well-edited vs rubber-stamped (e.g. input criteria and output criteria 
for the RSE processes).

Stable technology vs flavor of the month  (At one point "Word Perfect" 
was considered the archival format for some DOD documents)

Consensus-directed vs Community input with professional oversight and 
guidance.


Mike