Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: [I18ndir] I18ndir last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 3/1/22 8:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> My snarky comments, to which Pete responded, were not intended
> for this list because they are about how that directorate is
> organized and how well it is working rather than anything being
> discussed on this list. 

Sorry about that - I forwarded the whole thing to get your feedback 
about internationalization on the record, but could have been more 
careful about removing matters related to operation of the i18ndir.

<snip/>

> --On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 17:02 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

<snip/>

>> Although I agree that internationalization issues can be
>> especially thorny, I wonder if this document should say
>> something more generally. (For instance, another example might
>> be YANG modules, which AIUI in the past have caused some
>> adjustments to the editorial process.)
> 
> Agreed there is a potential issue.
>   
>> This could be defined in a new RPC responsibility within
>> section 4.3, such as:
>>
>>      8. Conferring with relevant experts regarding particular
>> kinds of
>>         content when publishing RFCs or helping to define
>> policies for the
>>         Series; such topics might include internationalization
>> and
>>         localization [RFC 7997], graphical formats such as SVG
>> [RFC 7966],
>>         and structured content such as YANG modules [RFC 7950].
> 
> That goes in a direction I would recommend against.  At present
> (and under the "old" system) the can reach out to, or confer
> with, just about anyone they decide they need to consult about
> just about any issue (I can't think of exceptions, but there
> might be some).  If they discover they need to pay consulting
> fees to get the advice they need, 

The text I proposed didn't say anything about paid consulting.

> nothing prevents them from
> discussing that with the LLC and asking that the LLC initiate
> whatever procedures are needed.  I can see nothing in the new
> model that changes that except that, if the LLC were to decide
> it needs additional substantive advice, the RSAG and/or RSWG
> would be good places to start.

My personal opinion (no document editor hat on) is that anyone should be 
able to talk with anyone they feel they need to talk with in order to 
Get Things Done around here. If RPC folks feel that it'd be helpful to 
have a chat with someone in or out of the "RFC community" about 
internationalization or SVG or whatever so that they can make informed 
decisions or contributions, then have at it. Perhaps we don't need to 
say that explicitly (and it's kind of sad if we think we need to), but I 
would not want to end up in a place where RPC folks think their hands or 
tongues are tied. They're the one who have to implement this stuff, 
after all!

> You mentioned YANG.  I suggest there might, in the future, be
> issues with JSON and, if people decide they care under the new
> model, subtle issues about accessibility.  Others may have other
> examples.  As a very different example, I can also imagine the
> RPC wanting to seek external expertise about some of the bullet
> points under 4.3(17)
> 
> All of this works today because the RPC consists of people who
> are highly skilled and professional experts in their work, with
> broad perspective, and a great deal of good judgment and good
> sense.  I hope and trust that will never change.  Should it do
> so, we would have far greater problems than who they are allowed
> to confer with and about what.  And it would be up to the LLC
> --conferring with whomever it thought appropriate but presumably
> including the RSAG and RSWG as needed-- to solve that problem.
> 
> So, while I think your proposed text is well-written enough,
> particularly calling out i18n and the others just as example, to
> be mostly harmless, I think making this a specific requirement
> rather than an expectation that they will apply good judgment
> and knowledge about what they do and do not know.  I fear even
> that text could be problematic because it would add nothing
> except the possibility of some future debate about whether the
> RPC needs specific authorization in other areas.
> 
> If you think something more is needed in that rather long list
> in Section 4.3, I'd recommend making it far more general.
> Please rewrite what I'm about to say, but I'd think about
> something like:
> 
> 	"Identify topics and issues that they encounter while
> 	processing documents or carrying out other
> 	responsibilities on this list for which they lack
> 	sufficient expertise and identifying and conferring with
> 	relevant experts as needed."

Something like that seems appropriate, and closer to what I had in mind.

Peter