Hiya, On 25/06/2019 15:18, Michael Richardson wrote: > > 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. > > What if the IETF were to support a position at a university, that was the RSE? > How would you feel about that? > > (I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it yet, it just occured to me) Assuming that it wasn't an appointment for life, or a prof/chair-like position that a nominated university chose the person to fill, then I don't see how that's different from just appointing someone who happens to be employed by a university to be the RSE via an RFP according to the current process. If it were a life-time appointment, or a prof/chair position with the incumbent selected by a univ, then I probably wouldn't like that on the basis that it'd take away too much control from the community, but it's hard to say really unless someone fleshed the idea out some more. Having an RSE that just happens to be an academic or librarian could make sense of course but that's a different question. It'd also make me wonder if the RFC6635 statement that "The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production Center and Publisher" still made sense for such an RSE, so again I'd fall back to preferring we first understand if we have a community position on what we all want for the RSE role, be that an "RFC editor model 3" or what we have today. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
