Opened 12 years ago

Closed 11 years ago

#56 closed defect (fixed)

(B.1) Abstract and Introduction: Experience

Reported by: john+rfc@… Owned by: jmh@…
Priority: minor Milestone: milestone1
Component: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2 Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call Keywords:


(B.1) Abstract and Introduction: Experience

This document does not represent only "a year of experience",
certainly not if you are going to say "The RFC Editor model was
first approved in October 1, 2008 and has evolved since".
Either claim almost three years of experience, drop the "one
year" assertion, or explain where that number comes from. I
contend we learned at least as much from the advice we got from
experience between the October 2008 publication date, including
the process of trying to recruit an RSE during 2009 and early
2010, as we did subsequent to March 2010, much less since July

Note the interaction between the above and the second full
paragraph of the Introduction, where you write "The model set
forth below is the result of those discussions and the
experience gained since, as described immediately below,..."
and "This version of the document also reflects the
discussions, as described below, that have occurred since the
first efforts to clarify that internal organization" because it
isn't clear "since what or when", nor who is responsible for
the conclusions. You then go on to say "This version of the
model is based on his recommendations and the subsequent
discussion on the rfc-interest list". That is probably the
most accurate of this group of statements, but it is redundant
at best and contradictory at worst.

Further complicating things, the fourth full paragraph of the
Introduction says "In order to gain experience with 'running
code' a transitional RFC Series Editor was hired who analyzed
the managerial environment and provided recommendations".
First, enough constraints were placed on the TRSE that it is
not clear that "experience with 'running code'" applies --
perhaps the text should say "In order to gain a better
understanding of what was needed, a transitional...". More
important, if we really have such recommendations from the TRSE
and this version of the document is based on them, then they
need to be published somewhere for community information (or
included as an appendix to this document). I haven't seen them
in any form coherent enough to base changes to a document on
(and I'm an insider in that regard). If this draft isn't
dependent on those recommendations, don't claim that it is; if
it is, the community needs to see them.

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by Bernard_Aboba@…

  • Owner set to jmh@…

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by jmh@…

The editor has attempted to wordsmith this in his working draft to more correctly describe the history and state. It will be checked with the original commentor.

comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by jmh@…

This change has been made in the -03 document that is in the repository. However, the ticket is left open pending confirmation that the issue was correctly resolved.

comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by jmh@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

No further discussion after -04, closed.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.