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 1:58 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 1) If the stream managers are the final authority, then different
> streams will get different answers, reducing the coherence and
> consistency of the series.  That does not seem beneficial.
>

I suspect that we're simply going to disagree here, but I'll make an attempt
to lay out my reasoning. While I think that coherence and consistency are
a value, they are not the only value. For instance, we do not encourage
the RPC to rewrite the documents extensively to make them read the
same. Indeed, the style guide does not standardize British vs.
American spelling across the series as a whole [0].

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.
I believe that this includes allowing the streams to decide not only the
technical
content but also to a large degree the editorial content. While one might
imagine
some dispute about style which would be so large that it threatened the
character of the series (e.g., the stream wanted to have all its documents
published only in Esperanto), in my experience disputes between authors
and the RPC are not generally of this nature, and therefore IMOthe stream
ought to decide.


2) As a minor matter, the individual ADs are not the stream manager for
> the IETF stream.  Traditional, the IETF chair has been the stream
> manager.  I hope that the IESG has adopted a policy of appointing a
> separate individual stream manager.  But there are not 13 stream
> managers for the IETF stream.  And there should not be, as it would
> render the notion of "stream manager" rather odd.
>

Yes. This is why I said "the AD on behalf of the IESG". I think this is a
practical approach given that the AD already is involved in making
publication time decisions such as which changes to the text require
extra IETF processing, such as being sent back to the WG. However,
I wouldn't object to having this as the IESG's designate if people prefer.

-Ekr

[0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html#section-3.1

On 11/28/2020 4:51 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 10:53 AM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[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
> >
> >
> >
>