Re: RFC Editor model

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 7:15 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> 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.

I also wondered whether an employee / unlimited term would be better.
I think that we need to think about this a bit like a tenured professor.

Echoing my question from the other thead: Why do you think that?  What properties are you trying to achieve with that arrangement?

--Richard

 

    > 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 think that the community would be quite flexible to any well articulated
plan.  That doesn't mean we have to finish revising all the documents before
we start.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux