Thanks for bringing this up Ted. I do think we need to get community feedback on all this in the near term as we try to find a new RSE. I agree that you've described one aspect of tension with the current RFC editor model. I'm sure there are more;-) On 24/06/2019 20:05, Ted Hardie wrote: > > If others agree, the question becomes how to address it. One option raised > by Sean Turner in the context of IASA2 discussions was making this an > employee position whose term is not limited; there are others as well. FWIW, personally I don't like that employee idea at all for reasons discussed on the iasa2 list. At least not with the current RFC editor model - I think the community would have to have first reached consensus on an RFC editor model 3 but maybe that's what you meant. > As a practical matter, I do not believe that the time available allows the > IETF LLC to put out an RFP without referencing the current model. But > during the community comments on the statement of work, I encourage others > to consider how flexible we can be within the confines of the current model > to enable an evolution to RFC Editor Model 3. That may enable us to hire > an RSE with the view toward that evolution, as well as one dedicated to the > work for all of us which is consistent across the models: producing an RFC > Series that serves the streams and the Internet technical community as best > we can. I quite like the idea of hiring an RSE on the understanding that the community will be developing an RFC editor model 3. I'm not sure we can make other assumptions as to how that discussion will end up in the near term though. > My thoughts as individual only, Ditto. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
