Subject: [Rfced-future] Moving on from Issue 10

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:07:41 +0200

Dear colleagues

Thus far on this issue, there doesn’t seem to be strong objection to the notion that we have a “figurehead or thought leader” of some kind.  We have a number of people who simply said, “yes”, one person who said, “no need”, and two who really want to see what comes next.  My suggestion is that we do just that, unless people have strong objections.  Specifically not yet agreed: what the title of the person is, and for that matter, anything else about this person.  Unless people have strong objections, we’d like to say that there is sufficient consensus to move on, and see how far we can get.

Your chairs will raise issues 11 and 12 respectively in separate messages.  Please respond in thread so we can keep track, but of course if you need to link to another point, please feel free to do so.

Eliot & Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:24:51 -0400

On 10/2/2020 1:07 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dear colleagues
>
> Thus far on this issue, there doesn’t seem to be strong objection to 
> the notion that we have a “figurehead or thought leader” of some kind. 
>  We have a number of people who simply said, “yes”, one person who 
> said, “no need”, and two who really want to see what comes next.  My 
> suggestion is that we do just that, unless people have strong 
> objections. *Specifically not yet agreed: what the title of the person 
> is, and for that matter, anything else about this person.*  Unless 
> people have strong objections, we’d like to say that there is 
> sufficient consensus to move on, and see how far we can get.
>
> Your chairs will raise issues 11 and 12 respectively in separate 
> messages.  Please respond in thread so we can keep track, but of 
> course if you need to link to another point, please feel free to do so.
>
> Eliot & Brian
>

I see I missed the period where we got to discuss the what the next set 
of issues would be.   In any event, let me bring forward the "current" 
definition:

  * The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor,
    acting to support the mission of the RFC Series.
  * As such, the RFC Editor is the implementer handling the editorial
    management of the RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes.
  * In addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime
    mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and
    archiving RFCs.

I would suggest we first start with these.  Indicate "This applies to or 
describes the job" or "This no longer applies to or describes the job" 
along with the reasons why or why not.

This encompasses your issue 11, but I think we need to defer issue 12 
until the latter two item above are resolved.

Later, Mike

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 10:45:58 +0900

Hello Eliot,

Just a little request: If at all possible, could you please avoid 
subjects with only numbered issues? I know some people in our community 
have no problem remembering dozens or hundreds of RFC numbers, but that 
might not apply to everybody.

Also, keeping a link to the issue in the mail might help.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2020 15:09:28 +0200

On 2020-10-03, at 03:45, Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Just a little request: If at all possible, could you please avoid subjects with only numbered issues? I know some people in our community have no problem remembering dozens or hundreds of RFC numbers, but that might not apply to everybody.

+1.

I’ve lost track of the discussion in this list.

Fortunately, only nuances separate my opinions from those of Mike StJohns, so I’ll speak up only when I see him post and think one of these nuances is worth mentioning.

Grüße, Carsten