Hiya, Just on two of the more general points; (I'm sure Sarah or someone else from RSOC will reply to the SOW specifics)... On 30/08/2019 18:30, Michael StJohns wrote: > This has the feel to me of a push towards a more "managed" RFC Editor vs > the independent model we've had over the lifetime of the series - and > doing it by small nibbles and by delay. We had a joint IAB/RSOC call before these mails went out and my estimation of that was there everyone who was on that call really wanted the community to determine whether or not we end up with a more "managed" RSE or a more independent one as we have now. From what I've seen and heard, there are people with varying opinions on that managed vs. independent continuum both within and outside the IETF leadership. So, no, I don't think it'd be fair to describe this as "a push towards" more managed. (Given the history, I can understand if some people have that impression though.) > With respect to the evolution of the RFC Series - I haven't > seen any clear statement from anyone of the changes they > believe need to be made. I don't believe we have a clear statement of changes that may be desired. Partly, that's I guess because people have different opinions as to where it's best to end up. But from chatting with people, I do think there seems to be a fairly widespread opinion that having the RSE be supposedly responsible for day-to-day supervision of the RPC (as is called for in RFC6635) isn't a good plan today. And that opinion seems to be held by people from all parts of the managed vs. independent continuum mentioned above. So while there isn't afaik anything like a complete list of proposed changes, there do seem to be some changes that may be uncontroversial and useful. (I'm fairly sure there will also be some ideas in this space that will be controversial:-) Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
