Marcus Leech wrote: > Todd Glassey wrote: > >> Hmmmm... The SOW MUST define all the elements of the Editor's >> responsibility and all the specific tasks they perform as well as the >> SLA's for those Tasks. It also MUST address the SOD (Separation of >> Duties) within the Editor's work since they are altering the IP >> submitted. >> >> Without that ther is no comprehensive model for evaluating how well >> the IETF met its standards and whether it caused damage to others in >> the process. >> >> Todd Glassey as an Auditor. >> > Methinks you've drunk too deeply of the SOX Kool-Aid, Todd. Along > what lines would you > suggest that the RFC Editor "separate its duties"? > > Perhaps you would also reccommend that the guy who replaces the air > freshener blocks > in the mens bathroom not also be the same guy who fixes the plumbing? It isn't; one is typically a janitor, the other a plumber. > Or maybe the > guy who diagnoses your automotive problems be different from the guy > who actually > fixes it? Perhaps in the RFC-Editor function, the person who fixes > missing commas > and semi-colons, should be different from the person who addresses > clarity and > normative reference issues? Clarity and normative reference issues are often content specific. They require knowledge of Internet protocols and their interrelationships (even if the IESG approves the doc doesn't mean the doc is written clearly in that regard). General text editing is not content specific. If you think you can find someone knowledgable enough in the Internet who wants to burn their time fixing typos, please do. I suspect a separation of duties will be necessary otherwise. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf