Nico,
On 10-Apr-21 04:05, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:57:40AM +0000, John Scudder wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2021, at 5:26 PM, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> At this point I think the best compromise is for the IESG to indicate
>>> its terminology preferences to the RSE and hope the RSE enforces them
>>> (which, they almost certainly would).
>>
>> “Hope the RSE enforces them”. Enforcement would be a significant step
>> beyond the mere “recommendation” that was in the proposed charter. I’m
>> surprised you’re advocating for this more prescriptive approach.
>
> I wasn't expressing _my_ hope. I should have been clearer.
>
> My proposal, fleshed out:
>
> - direct the RSE to develop terminology standards;
We don't yet know the future of the "RSE" role, but what is certain
is that the IETF can't "direct" that person in any plausible model.
> - direct the RPC to enforce the RSE's terminology standards;
Generally speaking the RPC applies the agreed style guide, so
any terminology standards or guidelines would be part of the style
guide. We don't yet know the future of how the style guide is
maintained.
> - whenever an author or authors, as well as the responsible AD,
> disagree with editorial changes made or proposed by the RPC, they may
> override the RPC's change,
That's always been a matter of negotiation. I don't see that changing,
but if it does, it will be an RFC Series policy matter. We don't yet know
the future of how RFC Series policy is set.
> - but if the RPC feels strongly about it, they may request a WG LC on
> this issue.
That seems very weird. The RPC as an organisation has no standing in
the IETF process.
> - There would be no IESG or IETF involvement in resolving any such
> disputes.
That's self-contradictory. You just suggested a WG LC, i.e. part of the
IETF process. And of course if a draft is changed after IETF LC,
it needs agreement from at least the AD, and possibly a repeat of the
IETF LC and IESG approval.
Regards
Brian
