[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) **

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Tweaking the subject line since I *think* he have travelled out of the "strategic" zone.
That is, the style guide is something with long term effects, but its implementation is very much document-by-document.
Let's take this a step closer to the everyday...
The RPC edits a document, the authors object to one of the edits claiming the RPC's understanding of the English language is incorrect: who arbitrates or makes the final decision?
I can be happy with many answers to that question, but would point out that historically, someone has been paid to do that work.

There is, IMHO, a difference between having a go-to backstop who ensures consistency and is responsible for decisions, and having someone to whom you can go for advice. In the first case the RPC is paid to try, and the backstop is paid to hold the line. In the second case, the RPC is paid to hold the line, and someone is paid to give advice. 

It's a small thing, but it is a realignment of 'powers' and should have a consequent redistribution of financial resources.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 28 November 2020 10:12
To: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] ** Consensus check on part of Issue 12: Is the person an advisor (RSA) or an Executive Editor (RSE) **

Good morning/evening both of you,

> On 27 Nov 2020, at 21:37, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 28-Nov-20 05:46, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>> I found this just a tiny bit ambiguous. I think that, in the context of the subject line, I can work it out. So, to be clear...
>>>> 
>>>> • The chairs think that there is likely rough consensus that role of the chair and the RS[EA] should be split.
>>>> 
>>>> • The chairs think we have consensus that the RS[EA] can raise issues to the strategic group
>>>> 
>>>> • The chairs think there is likely rough consensus that the RS[EA] does not make strategic decisions but that those are decided by the strategic body
>>>> 
>>>> • The chairs think there is likely rough consensus that the RS[EA] does not direct the RPC/REP.
>>>> 
>>>> Right?
>>> 
>>> Right.
>> 
>> Good, then I'm OK with the first three bullets, but unsure about the last one. It covers a rather large area since there are number of things on which the RPC need advice, guidance, and direction per the helpful email from Sandy.
> 
> I think there is some ambiguity about the word "direct". Does it mean "give orders to" as in "the policeman directed me to put my hands behind my head", or "give authoritative advice to" as in "Heather directed Sandy towards the new edition of the Chicago Manual of Style"?
> 
> If the former, I'm sure bullet 3 is correct, as orders come from the customer, which is the IETF LLC. If it's the latter, I'm sure it's wrong.
> 

Yes, just to be clear, we are talking in the negative here.  So… “The RS[EA] does not direct me to put my hands on my head” ;-) or perhaps more apposite: “The RS[EA] does not order the staff to take specific actions.  That person may offer guidance in specific situations, but is not in the chain of command.”

Is there general agreement on what I just wrote?

As to the style guide, perhaps that’s a separate issue or a good more-than-hypothetical to work out.  Is it maintained by the RPC with guidance of the RS[EA]?  Is it maintained by the strategic body?  Is it maintained by the RS[EA]?  Does that need to be specified here or by the strategic body?

Eliot