(Excuse vicious trimming of the text, but it was getting a bit long...)
On 26-Jun-19 02:32, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:20 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
...>> I'm happy to include IRTF and ISE; their omission was a simple oversight. But even if we expand my statment to say "The primary way the RFC editor adds value is by publishing IAB/IETF/IRTF/ISE documents", then wouldn't the natural course be, for example, for the owners of those streams to collectively oversee the RFC editor?
>>
>> In other words, form follows function -- the proper for selection and management of the RFC editor should be based on what we expect the that role to accomplish. I'm not understanding what desired function would be driving the need for independent powers.
It isn't the role of the RSE that is causing angst here; it is the editorial
independence of the RFC series as a publication venue. Some of us at least
believe that it's independence of thought and publication that have led to
the success of the Internet technical community as a whole. The IETF, IRTF
and IAB are not sacred; to a considerable extent these RFC "streams" are
artefacts.
> The largest customer would likely wind up with the most power in this relationship.
Indeed, *if* the word "customer" is the right one. But look at it the other
way round: if the RFC series is the customer, its largest supplier is the IETF.
>From the point of view of the whole Internet technical community, that's
an equally valid perspective (and many in that community now think that
the IETF is broken).
> The current structure has allowed the RSE to maintain the streams as an archive series and preserve important properties of the separate streams. The independence allows the RSE to have a clear and open voice on the RFC series and management of the collective streams as opposed to being subordinate to the various stream owners. This is a difficult to work with community and pressure is applied in many directions, this independence may be key to keeping an RSE long term.
More seriously, it may be key to keeping an RFC series in the long term.
Regards,
Brian
