Subject: RE: [Techspec] IETF steering of publisher editing

From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:50:28 -0500

Leslie wrote:
> "In specific instances, where some or all of document text is 
> the result
>   of a careful negotiation of contributions (within or between working
>   groups, reviewers, etc), the IESG will require that the publisher
>   publish the text verbatim.   It is the expectation of the IETF
>   community that this will not be done often."
> 

I think this text captures a capability that the IETF needs and should replace the current text in Req-POSTEDIT-5. It is probably necessary to generalize "the IESG" to include the IAB and IRSG.

> WRT getting in the way of the type of experiment proposed in
> draft-eronen-rfc-selective-experiment-00.txt -- I'm sympathetic,
> to the extent we believe the IETF community *wants* to be
> able to engage in such experiments (I'll observe it's a personal
> -00 submission).   But, much of the motivation of that experiment
> should be undone if we do the TechSpec job properly.

If I understand Henrik correctly, the goal is to not close the door on doing a process experiment like this.  In the future there may be other experiments that we come up with.  It's not possible to figure out what sorts of requirements we might need in the future to accomodate some not yet thought of experiment.  If the desire is just to allow experiments, I think it is more appropriate to add a new requirement to section: 3.20 (Process and Document Evolution).  I think this is already covered, but if we want to make it explict, we should add a new requirement along the lines of:

Req-PROCESSCHG-2 - The IETF technical publisher should participate in and support process experiments involving the technical publication process.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:44:10 +0200

Hi,

> Leslie wrote:
...
>> should be undone if we do the TechSpec job properly.

The TechSpec job is one prerequisite for eliminating the need for the
draft-eronen-... experiment, right, but not the only one.  Inadequate
funding may also be a cause of future problems with increasing
publication queue size and delay, as may other problems with the
process.  But as Stephen points out,

> If I understand Henrik correctly, the goal is to not close the door
> on doing a process experiment like this.

Right.

> In the future there may be
> other experiments that we come up with. It's not possible to figure
> out what sorts of requirements we might need in the future to
> accomodate some not yet thought of experiment. If the desire is just
> to allow experiments, I think it is more appropriate to add a new
> requirement to section: 3.20 (Process and Document Evolution). I
> think this is already covered, but if we want to make it explict, we
> should add a new requirement along the lines of:
> 
> Req-PROCESSCHG-2 - The IETF technical publisher should participate in
> and support process experiments involving the technical publication
> process.

Good point.  This is good, as it speaks to the issue of doing
experiments, instead of having a requirement geared towards one
characteristic of one particular experiment.

	Henrik