Re: [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

OK, thanks.
I'll accept "misinterpretation of unfortunate juxtaposition of words"
A
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 31 March 2020 22:22
To: [e-mail]; 'Eliot Lear' <lear=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program


Hiya,

On 31/03/2020 22:15, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Stephen, I see a problem with you "calling consensus" on those
> earlier discussions post facto, as it were. 

Sorry, that wasn't my intent. I had thought it might be
a non-controversial part of all this but that just goes
to show how little I know;-)

> It may be a fine thing to
> do to revisit the discussion, but assuming that that decision has
> already been made is troublesome.

Nothing I said indicated any decision had been made. I
guess you're reading too much between the lines maybe?

> FWIW, I disagree quite strongly with the idea that someone who has
> editorial and production experience should not be involved in the
> day-to-day management of the people who are responsible for
> substantial work conforming to the leadership that that person gives.

I fully agree the RSE needs to be involved. But I think
the language in the current RFC makes the RSE accountable
for the day-to-day performance of RPC staff. (I'd need to
go check.) So I do think that is something to revise and
please note that I only said revise, I didn't say how one might revise,
and nor did I say how I would want things
revised!

Cheers,
S.

> 
> 
> Best, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Rfced-future
> <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: 31
> March 2020 22:03 To: Eliot Lear <lear=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC
> Editor Future Development Program
> 
> 
> Hi Eliot,
> 
> I'm sure this'll not get forgotten but just to get it on the
> table...
> 
> In earlier discussions there seemed to be relatively broad agreement
> that the idea that the RSE should be responsible for the day-to-day
> performance of the RPC was outdated, esp. now that we have the LLC.
> 
> So I think revising that part of the RSE role description is
> something that should be part of this.
> 
> Cheers, S.
> 
> On 30/03/2020 07:51, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> [Bcc: rfc-interest just this once: if you want to join the program
>> mailing list, you can click here
>> <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>.]
>> 
>> Greetings and welcome to the new RFC Editor Future Development
>> Program.
>> 
>> Last year, the RFC Editor held a number of sessions to discuss how
>> the RFC editor program might evolve. This program was chartered to
>> foster discussion and consensus on possible changes. Such changes
>> could include the role of the RFC editor, the role of others, the
>> structure means by which the RFC editor and those others are
>> overseen, and any necessary accountability mechanisms, just to name
>> a few aspects.  A number of others were discussed last year, and
>> I’m sure those will come up again.
>> 
>> What if anything changes is entirely up to the community, as this
>> is being run under an IAB open program, and it will be IETF
>> community members who put forward both problem statements and
>> proposed solutions.
>> 
>> Your chair has no particular agenda with regard to what the outcome
>> of this work should be.  On the other hand, with people having
>> passionate views on this subject, my only agenda is to try to make
>> the experience positive for everyone.  Please help me in that
>> endeavor, and in doing so we will reach for the broadest
>> consensus.
>> 
>> Regarding working methods, our program charter says that we will
>> operate similar to an IETF working group.  Those procedures are
>> spelled out in RFC 2418 Section 3, and I propose to stay congruent
>> with them so that there are no surprises.
>> 
>> With this having been said, I propose to proceed as follows:
>> 
>> Open up “the floor” for short problem statements that people think
>> we need to address. We should be clear on what we see as problems
>> and their scope. See if we can get agreement on those. Open up “the
>> floor” for proposals on how to solve those problems. See if we can
>> get agreement on those. For (1) and (3) we can provide some
>> structure to facilitate comparison and discussion, if that is the
>> wish of the group.  This in itself is a discussion point I invite
>> you to address.
>> 
>> The pace of this work will depend very much on how fast we come to
>> consensus on both the problems and the solutions.  The timing of
>> meetings will be driven by the group.  We can address that in more
>> detail in due course.
>> 
>> Do people find this agreeable?  Otherwise, please feel free to
>> propose alternatives that the group can consider.
>> 
>> Eliot
>> 
>> 
>> 
>