Hi AlexaThis message addresses the editorial stream. You observed that the editorial stream is low energy and producing relatively few output, and you asked for comment.
I was one of the co-chairs of the process that created RFC 9280. There were many participants with many goals. Ultimately, the idea that the community should have direct responsibility for policy prevailed. RFC 9280 and its successor both have very wide scopes. The first question the RSWG had to deal with was what we would address and what we would not. Even today I am not entirely convinced that there is consensus on that very question. Of the three documents that were passed, one was an update to 9280, one addresses UTF-8 usage, and permits updates to RFCs in limited circumstances. Perhaps development here *should* be slow, but that was a major complaint of the previous system. In this sense, nothing has changed.
But some things have changed. Operational responsibility for the RPC shifted from the RSE and the IAB to the LLC. In many ways this is a good thing. A major complaint of the previous system was that the lines of responsibility were really unclear, and it meant that it was quite difficult for the RSE to establish and maintain timelines. The RPC is providing good visibility to publication stats, project information, and priorities.
There is quite a lot of information in various reports (Jean's the RPC roadmap, queue stats) that probably could be consolidated for community consumption, and there is one gap.
I think the community is likely interested in the following: 1. Are documents being published in a timely manner? (queue stats) 2. What is changing? (Read: what are the RPC priorities?) 3. How does the community influence those priorities?The RSWG has taken itself mostly out of the business of (2) which has left a lack of clarity when it comes to (3). To prove the point, when you look at the RPC roadmap, most of the tasks don't get airplay on these lists. I will bet that the majority of RSWG and RFC-Interest participants haven't reviewed the roadmap. RFC 9280 states that if people have questions, they can raise the matter with the LLC or the executive director.
I think this model is working mostly reasonably, because otherwise the community can and will micromanage. But I am a little concerned about the lack of community engagement and discussion on those projects and priorities. We used to have the RSOC to perform these sorts of reviews and to provide feedback to the RPC. I fear that feedback has been almost entirely lacking in the new process. That may require some tweaking.
Eliot On 17.12.2025 19:07, Alexis Rossi wrote:
# Observations on the Editorial Stream ProcessThe current RSWG + RSAB model has sent 3 documents to the RPC in the past 3 years, and one more is currently nearing conclusion in the working group. This pace has accelerated over time, as most of these documents are from the past year, but it still seems like a slow pace for relatively straightforward documents.Participation in the RSWG is typically limited to a small number of active contributors, and we’ve seen relatively long lags during those discussions. Additionally, Last Call requests for broader community input have generally not resulted in significant additional participation.This may indicate a lack of controversy over these documents, and/or a lack of wider community interest in Editorial policy.I wasn’t present for the conversations preceding the creation of this new Editorial Stream model, so there may be concerns or goals I’m not aware of (except as they’re reflected in 9280 or this github repo [1]). However, I think it may be time to consider whether the Editorial Stream process should be adjusted to improve timeliness. For example, I think the IAB’s document process (expert board combined with community review) may be a useful model to consider.I am interested in community feedback on whether you think the current model is working well and, if not, what changes might improve efficiency and/or participation. Please feel free to share on list, or with me directly.[1] https://github.com/rfcseries-wg/new-topics/issues
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
