Re: [Rfced-future] Style guide and other non-strategic things ** Consensus check on part of Issue 12: Is the person an advisor (RSA) or an Executive Editor (RSE) **

> On 30/11/2020, at 9:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 29-Nov-20 19:47, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2020 10:42 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>> 
>>> Depending upon what you mean by "look exactly like" below, the 
>>> statement is either irelevant or does not match what I have seen as 
>>> existing practice.
>> 
>> I mean content and general organization. I do agree with you, Joel, that 
>> the same style guide applies to all streams.
> 
> Agreed, but when it gets tricky is if there's disagreement between the RPC and the stream (or authors) about interpretation of the style guide. There's no doubt that having an RSE provides a definitive tiebreaker in such a case. If we have an RSA model, I think we'd have to specify who would act as arbiter for style disagreements.

This appears to still be conflating separate things:

0) Who decides what the style guide is;

TBD

1)  Who determines how the style guide should be interpreted?

I believe everyone is agreed that this is the RPC on day-to-day basis.

2)  In the event the authors disagree with the determination above, who checks it and then tells anyone who disagrees with it that they need to accept it?

What some people are proposing is that the stream manager does this rather than the RS[E/A]. 

3)  What happens if the person(s) at 1) above disagrees with the decision at 2) above, and in particular what does that mean for consistency if 2) above is stream managers?

If 2) is an RSE then nothing happens and we assume consistency is in place by virtue of having a single person making the decisions.  If 2) is the stream managers then that can be fixed by giving the RPC (and anyone else?) the ability to appeal to 0) above for a consistency check.

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director

> 
>   Brian
> 
>> 
>> -- Christian Huitema
>> 
>>> 
>>> We go to significant trouble to create and maintain a consistent look 
>>> and feel across all RFCs.  there is an argument that they should be 
>>> more distinguished, as some people think / hope that would reduce the 
>>> all too common confusions.  (Of course, one would then want I-Ds to 
>>> look more distinct as well.)
>>> 
>>> But untill and unless we agree as a community on making that change, 
>>> our existing practice has been to work for and value such consistency.
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>> 
>>> On 11/29/2020 1:36 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2020 10:12 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2020-11-28, at 23:07, Eric Rescorla<ekr@rtfm.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> As I'm sure I've said before, from my perspective, the various 
>>>>>> streams are
>>>>>> customers of the RFC series, and ultimately it needs to serve their 
>>>>>> needs.
>>>>> Agree completely.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But the RFC series may actually be better able to serve their needs 
>>>>> if there is a way to have actual push-back on some not-so-good ideas 
>>>>> of a particular stream manager.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I agree with EKR that having the RPC escalate "author disagreements" 
>>>> to the stream manager would quickly resolve most of the issues. I am 
>>>> not too concerned about "uniformity of the series" arguments, since 
>>>> by definition research papers from the IRTF will not look exactly 
>>>> like proposed standards from the IETF, or individual contributions in 
>>>> the independent stream. If that's really becoming a problem, then the 
>>>> "strategic" body looks like a good place to discuss it.
>>>> 
>>>> -- Christian Huitema
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future