2012-05-14-rsoc-minutes
slides-interim-2022-rfcedprog-02-sessa-2012-05-14-rsoc-minutes-00

RSOC call, 2012-05-14

0. Agenda Bash

1. RSE Reports
   a. RFC Publication
   b. RSE Priorities & Projects
      i. Format discussion
      ii. Style Guide, parts 1 and 2
      iii. Publisher/RPC
      iv. www.rfc-editor.org

2. Paper copies
   a. Can we stop making paper copies?
   b. What do we do with the paper copies that currently are housed
   at AMS? 
   c. What do we do with the paper copies that are currently housed
   at UC? 

3. Budget Planning
   a. Staffing versus project backlog
   b. Special projects: web page redesign, tools for Format changes,
   stats & metrics 

 4. AOB
   a. another subpoena

-----

Attendees:
Heather Flanagan (RSE, scribe)
Bob Hinden
Nevil Brownlee
Alexey Melnikov
Fred Baker
Olaf Kolkman
Ole Jacobsen
Ray Pelletier
John Klensin


1. RSE Reports
   a. RFC Publication
   b. RSE Priorities & Projects

      i. Format discussion

* (Heather) Final version of requirements and requests sent to rfc-i;
keeping actual discussion of those requirements to the mailing lists,
would like to discuss whether or not this process is working; One
individual on the rfc-i list referred to the "usual IETF decision
making mechanism" leaving me concerned that I'm varying enough from
whatever the usual is that the IETF community - my largest customer -
will not accept any decisions/changes to the RFC format

* (Olaf) What is most important is that if new arguments are offered,
to take them in to account, but the process is reasonably correct;
making an inventory of requirements is a very reasonable first step

* (Ole) Note that no one is making a decision yet

* (Heather) Once the I-D are submitted, will look to see what best
matches the need, what the costs are for the best proposals

* (John) Would be helpful to add to the requirements list explicit
detail regarding trade-off's; the earlier we can get the costs to some
of these requirements documented, the better off we'll be

* (Bob) this will also need a discussion regarding cost of
implementation and vigorous analysis, and that needs to be done before
we lock in to any particular

* (Ole) this is when we could use a design team/team of experts; have
a small team chosen by RSE analyze potential impact

* (Nevil) discussing impacts and trade-off's would potentially be a
good topic for the BoF



      ii. Style Guide, parts 1 and 2

Draft Style Guide has been sent to RSAG and RFC Ed; time to post as an
actual I-D for public comment?

* (Heather) Does the community have the bandwidth to discuss both
Format _and_ Style Guide at the same time?

* general consensus: no, probably not yet

* (John) in the meantime, could potentially get "expert" eyes
reviewing it prior to submitting to broader community, resolving as
much as possible issues like British vs. American usage
(grammar/spelling/punctuation)



      iii. Publisher/RPC

Plan in place, see diagram online at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/lib/exe/detail.php?id=rfcpublisher&media=rfc-publisher-split-b-1.jpg

* Question about where to announce the "experiment?"

* This is a question for the IAB

* Probably should go to IAB, IAOC, ietf-announce, and rfc-i, and keep
this lightweight and simple

* Action: put together the proposed text (an FYI announcement, not a
request for consensus), send to RSOC, and ask the question again as to
where the announcement should go



      iv. www.rfc-editor.org

The RPC staff are very anxious to throw away the site and start over.
I do not want this to be design by committee with months of community
feedback.


* (John) better to find a website designer who is aware of user
interface and readability

* (Olaf) note that this could also be delegated to a volunteer



2. Paper copies

 a. Can we stop making paper copies?

* RSOC is ok with this was long as there is a reasonable backup plan

* (John) would prefer we defer this question until the RFC Format
question is settled, when we know how convertible the ascii-to-paper

   b. What do we do with the paper copies that currently are housed at
AMS?

* this may be a question for the IETF Trust; perhaps physically
turning these over to the Trust?

   c. What do we do with the paper copies that are currently housed at
USC / ISI?

* some of these are the authoritative copies and again this may be a
decision of the IETF Trust

* (Bob) there have been efforts to retrieve these copies

3. Budget Planning

   a. Staffing versus project backlog

   b. Special projects: web page redesign, tools for Format changes,
   stats & metrics 

* (Fred) will need a list of projects and general justification

* (Heather) will get the initial proposal for the June call; target is
to get Ray a final proposal in July



4. AOB

   a. another subpoena - note that subpoena's should ALWAYS go through
legal first