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) **

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 10:53 AM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> On 11/28/2020 3:04 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> That's a good way of framing the issue, Adrian. I personally lean
> towards the RPC holding the line, because it makes the overall workflow
> simpler and does not dilute responsibilities. Also, I am not aware of
> past cases in which the RSE had to overrule the RPC. Do we have examples
> of such incidents?
>

I actually prefer a third version: the stream manager should be the
ultimate decision maker, just as they are about the technical content of
the document. For the IETF stream this will typically be the responsible AD
on behalf of the IESG.

-Ekr