On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, July 16, 2006 9:19 AM -0700 Lixia Zhang
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
......
I would very much like to keep the picture as simple as
possible.
We agree about that. We just look at this and define "simple"
differently.
I'm personally very sympathetic to that argument since it is
not obvious to me that the right technical and copy editor
is necessarily the right web site creator or archivist. Ir
ia also not obvious to me that the right skill set for
evaluating documents to be published necessarily comes with
any of those other skills.
But it seems to me that a recasting of the single role into
several, with potentially different organizations taking on
different roles and tasks, is the solution to the problem
you are raising. If the IASA, in its wisdom, concludes
that the tasks they want to put out for bid track closely
the responsibilities of the RFC Editor today, then they
have made the decision you are concerned about for you:
that less-attractive future is not now.
Against that backdrop, I think there are only two rational
decisions. One is, as Joe and others have suggested, to
appoint the RFC Editor, let that organization select an
Editorial Board and similar mechanisms that they can work
with, and hold them responsible. The other, if that isn't
satisfactory, is to open up the task definition in a
broader way such that, e.g., one would come much closer to
the IEEE model (although still with great independence from
day-to-day IESG or IAB control).
An IAB appointed review board will still have great
independence from IAB control, as far as I see it. At the
same time, this would somewhat reduce the dependency on the
technical/architectural expertise on this RFC editor
organization.
Well, it may or may not have that independence, depending on how
things work. You can hypothesize that some future RFC Editor
organization will be chosen in spite of not having the skills to do
its own appointments and make its own decisions.
I was not hypothesizing that.
Rather, like you said in the above, "it is not obvious to me that the
right technical and copy editor is necessarily the right web site
creator or archivist"
I can hypothesize that, under the Nomcom model, the IAB could
deteriorate to the point that it would not have those skills.
if that ever happened, then we'd have a much bigger problem to worry
about than even RFC editors:-)
I note that draft-klensin-rfc-independent provides for advice from
the IAB on editorial board suggestions. I suggest that if the RFC
Editor, without any need for compulsion and especially in areas
where the RFC Editor organization doesn't have in-depth competence,
doesn't pay careful attention to that advice then we are will
probably have problems much more severe than can be controlled by
the choice of who appoints the Editorial Board.
paying attention is a very different issue than having the
architectural expertise and knowing the community.
All of that is speculation. One dimension of this problem is not
speculation and that is the issue of accountability. If the RFC
Editor appoints the Editorial Board (and members of its staff),
members of staff, yes.
But editorial board members will (mostly) not be RFC Editor's staff
members.
then we can hold the RFC Editor accountable for results. If the IAB
makes those appointments and things go astray --because of
professional disagreements, personality problems, or otherwise--
then we have opportunities for finger-pointing and maybe
micromanagement. I think we could get around that problem by
creating a more or less elaborate systems of checks and balances
such as appointment by one organization subject to approval/
ratification by the other, an appeals mechanism, etc., but I'm
trying to keep things simple. And I think the combination of
"simple" and "accountable" implies that the RFC Editor appoints the
Editorial Board, ideally after considering whatever _advice_ the
IAB decides to offer.
John, you do make a very good argument on this accountability issue.
However that does not ease my concern about the multi-dimensional
requirements on RFC editor, how feasible it is to find one that can
meet all the requirements, especially the technical requirements.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
