|
Hi - In one of the threads relating to the RSE resignation, someone (I
think Richard Barnes) asked the existential (and probably
misquoted by me) question of "why does the RSE need
independence?". I thought I'd provide my thoughts on that. There
are actually two different independence discussions - one of the
RSE as a contractor, and another of the RSE as a
editor/publisher. Both are important.
Practical/RSE as a contractor:
https://www.quotemaster.org/Dilbert#&gid=1&pid=7 There are two types of individual contractor I want to talk about: One that is plug-compatible for functions where you might need more or less effort over time. That's the "body shop" model where you hire HR folks or IT or janitorial services, security guards, or even programming services in a common field of endeavor (current example is IOT). The second is the subject matter expert who provides niche or hard to find skills. From a hiring point of view, you're might use the same job description to hire 100s of the same type of body-shop contractor, but you're rarely going to hire more than 1 or 2 people on a subject matter job description. Hiring managers sometimes confuse the two. For the the former,
the hiring manager generally understands the job, and can bring a
value-add to the discussions of how to make the job more efficient
(cost and time). For the latter, the hiring manager rarely
understands the nuances of the field being contracted, and needs
to restrain their impulses to give direction or advice to the
contractor in how to perform the job due to the real risk of
wasting or diluting the investment in the SME. An SME should be
a "fire and forget" asset that you tell what you want as the end
game and then you get the hell out of the way and let them do it.
In the current incumbent RSE we have an SME in the arcane field of standards publication - a subset of technical editing and publication. I mostly don't know what that entails, except that it gets us well-edited RFCs and lots of them, a new RFC format, DOI's and probably other nuances. I'm fine with that because "I am not a technical writer or a publisher" and other than saying "I think being able to put pictures and diagrams in the RFC is a good thing", I mostly wouldn't presume to try and out expert this expert. What I'm trying to say a bit obliquely is that it's unclear
whether the extent of "oversight" that the IAB has given itself
and the RSOC over the RSE is more beneficial to the mechanics of
publishing RFCs or has had an adverse or nil effect. Does the
cost vs benefit meet general business practices and community
needs? Should the RSOC restrain itself to simply monitoring
compliance with the SOW or is there a bigger role for it on a day
to day basis with the RSE? My general view is hands off, but I'm
willing the be persuaded if there's a clear benefit for the
community, RSE and series to some other approach. Lastly, the contract now resides with the LLC. That makes three
organizations within the I* structure that claim some authority
over the RSE. From a legal point of view, that can be
problematic. If you've been involved in contracting on either
side, you'll probably understand. For the rest of you, go talk to
a lawyer as there are nuances and rat holes galore. My
recommendation at this point given that the LLC legally owns the
contract would be to have the LLC figure things out a bit more and
comes up with an MOA of some sort (similar to the US Gov't concept
of a Contracting Officer's technical representative) for the
appropriate group to advise them.
Aspirational: RSE/ISE independence as a editor/publisher From 1969 until the AMS transition of publication services in
2009 and the RSE contract in 2012 the RFC Editor was an
independent organization providing publication services to the I*
community. In 2007 the community, not wishing to lose one of
Jon's legacies, formalized the Independent stream and submission
process. The related documents described the history of
independent submissions, the importance of such submissions, and
the path forward. Snippet from the abstract for RFC 4846:
There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community, predating the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) by many years, of use of the RFC Series to publish materials that are not rooted in the IETF standards process and its review and approval mechanisms. These documents, known as "Independent Submissions", serve a number of important functions for the Internet community, both inside and outside of the community of active IETF participants. I'm not going to repeat the high points of this document here, but suffice it to say that the independent stream provides a place for "other voices" - for dissent, for humor, for continuing discussion on what we are as a community, for cross publication of important technical knowledge, for radical proposals, for history, for remembrances - to speak without veto of the I* leadership and the I* participants. I believe that principle to be as important as any of the RFC's we've published over the years and is an important part of what differentiates the I* from other technical communities. I mention the ISE because of the timeline. The I* of the time found the concept of independent submissions so important and was nervous about the eventual transfer of the RFC series from ISI and the stewardship of Bob and Joyce that they institutionalized it in a separate person almost 5 years from that final transition. I suspect had we done things in slightly different order - RSE first - AND written in the independent stream as part of that process, that we wouldn't have a separate ISE, instead incorporating that independent stream under the RSE. Continuing on - we as a community benefit from a thoughtful and
independent publication process. Doing it the way we have tends
to prevent capture of the process by one or another groups of more
limited interest or focus. Under the general rubric of "Internet"
we publish things today (e.g., IoT, web services) that weren't
contemplated when the series started. It's evolved as we have,
and more importantly as the wider community of internet related
users have. We've gotten lucky to have had professional, thoughtful and dedicated editors such as Jon, Bob & Joyce, and Heather. All of these are/were more than "just contractor"s and made us look good in spite of ourselves. If we're not careful we'll get just what some folks are asking for - a non-independent editor who has no incentive to rise above our diminished expectations. Mike
|
