Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 7:01 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 29-Jun-20 12:23, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > The suggestion was to have more than one more specialised role, not to
> promote 'leadership by committee.' This has been discussed a number of
> times previously, due to the very high bar created by the combination of
> requirements we current place on the position (as Martin mentioned).
>
> Certainly splitting the IT project management role (a.k.a. xml2rfcv3) from
> the Series Editor role is very desirable. A no-brainer, in fact.
>
> But anyone with experience (even as an author) with journal publishing
> knows that the role of an Editor, aided by an editorial board, is essential.


Well, as it happens, I have journal publishing experience as an author, and
I'm not sure I agree with this.

Moreover, the function of Editor of a journal is really much more like the
function of Program Committee chair in a conference. I.e., to select the
material to be published. That is not the case here.


If we want the RFC Series to be more than a copy shop, we need such a
> person.


Well, this seems like the place to start: what do we want the RFC Series to
be. As I said earlier, I see the primary purpose to be publishing technical
specifications. The requirements for the RFC Series to successfully fulfill
that functin seem relatively modest.


The board may well be small, as Nevil suggests, but part of its role is to
> consult the community. We have lots of running code proof that the
> community on its own doesn't produce consensus; we need some focus point to
> extract a consensus,


And yet, as I said, we have mechanisms for getting consensus on far more
weighty decisions. The reason I might be in favor of having some kind of
board is actually to *delegate* small decisions, not as a form of getting
consensus. But that naturally produces a division of labor in which the
board makes small decisions and the community makes big ones.

-Ekr



and the editorial board seems like a good solution for that.
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>
> >
> >
> >> On 29 Jun 2020, at 10:14 am, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/28/2020 7:50 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >>> In my view, the reason we need a person to do this is that leadership
> by committee is essential equivalent to a recipe for disaster.  And I do
> think we want leadership.
> >>>
> >>> Yours,
> >>> joel
> >> Strong +1 here.   One of the reasons for having a senior person in this
> role is so that the attention paid to the strategic evolution of the series
> does not wax and wane based on the current hobbyhorses of the leadership or
> their companies,  or upon other loud voices.   I have no problems with
> those voices influencing strategy, but I have strong problems with those
> voices directing strategy - especially if they change directions every 6
> months or a year.
> >>
> >> We've had at least 4 people with the "rare and difficult" [Aside:
> difficult?] combination of attributes so I'm not sure where Martin is
> coming from here.   It may be that he doesn't agree that those are the
> right attributes for the role, but that's a whole other discussion.  I
> would expect with some luck, and with an IETF that respects what an expert
> can bring to the role, we will be able to find someone who won't run
> screaming into the night after they meet us.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 6/28/2020 7:47 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, at 13:01, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
> >>>>> I've updated my Internet Draft to include a suggestion of what an
> RSEB
> >>>>> (RFC Series Editorial Board) could be structured. Take a look at
> >>>>>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes-01.html
> >>>>
> >>>> This is very much not what I had in mind.  We should not insist on
> having a role that depends on finding an individual with a rare and
> difficult combination of attributes.  And I don't think that you can
> support that function by taking a program with open participation and
> consensus processes and reduce that to 5 people (+stream manager ex
> officio) who are responsible for approving strategy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps you can start by explaining why you think we need to have an
> individual perform these functions.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rfced-future mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>