On Oct 13, 2020, at 3:48 PM, Jay Daley < jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Ben (and others)
Just a couple of follow-ups to clear up some possible crossed-wires:
I concur with what others have said about the lack of a bright line between authoring and contributing. And for this specific purpose, there should be no difference.
The distinction I was trying to make here is between those who interact/negotiate with the RPC about drafts that are in the process of becoming RFCs and those who don’t. I’ll assume that distinction is also mistaken unless I hear otherwise. a. Prohibit RPC staff from *authoring* non-RPC drafts (not contributing to, just authoring).
b. Prohibit any RPC staff that author a non-RPC draft from any processing or discussion of that draft in their RPC role.
c. No restrictions at all.
I prefer option c, with the caveat that perhaps the RPC member shouldn’t edit their own draft when it comes back to the RPC.
That’s basically what I was getting at with b. I have trouble imagining how an RPC staff member having offering RPC related opinions on a work-in-process draft would not, on the balance, do more good than harm.
I agree, my question was about RPC staff offering non-RPC related opinions.
Apologies, I misread the intent of B to mean that they could not offer opinions related to the RPC role while contributing to the work prior to it going into the RFC editor state(s). I think that is distinctly different than acting as the assigned editor on such a draft when it reaches that state.
Ben.
|
