2012-10-10-rsoc-minutes
slides-interim-2022-rfcedprog-02-sessa-2012-10-10-rsoc-minutes-00

RSOC call, 10-October-2012

0. Agenda Bash

1. RSE Reports
   a. RFC Publication
   b. RSE Priorities & Projects
      i. Format update
      ii. Style Guide, parts 1 and 2
      iii. New Stream
      (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=newstream)

2. Boilerplates and TLP history lesson

3. IETF 85 meeting

4. AOB
* RFC Editor liaison on all IAB calls (Joel)


Attendees:
* Heather Flanagan
* David Kessens
* Fred Baker
* Joel Halpern
* Ole Jacobsen
* John Klensin


Notes:
RSE Reports
RFC Publication

* We have some complex clusters coming through right now that are
definitely increasing queue time

* The question of publication times originally came up in 2007 (see
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=39452&tid=1349711202).
My understanding is that the consensus was to go ahead and publish
sooner than the appeals' timer and deal with appeals if/when needed.
I am not aware of any appeals since that discussion occurred. 

** this could be a good topic for IESG in Atlanta; if a document ever
did get published and then received a late appeal, we have no process
for removing an RFC

* (Fred) if we are trying to drive RFC publication arbitrarily short,
we also have a staffing issue; the bursts that come through are more
of a strain in the burst periods; we don't want to have to pay of
people to stay idle when we are in a lull

* (Fred/John) If the IESG wants publication within 30 days, then it
should be incumbent on the IESG to review with the community if/how to
make the appeals time correspondingly shorter; this would also imply
that getting a document out from the WG and on to the IESG ballot has
to go more quickly also

* (David) could we explore flex-time workers?  Two of the editors in
place are already flex time; we probably wouldn't give preference to
flex time; note that we are not looking for additional hires at this
time

* AI: HF to bring this up with the IESG

RSE Priorities


* Format update - haven't had as much time to focus on this, but noted that rfc-i

* Style Guide - 

* New Stream - mixed messages on prioritization
(Joel) a new stream is not of higher priority than Format, but we
should pay at least a little more attention to figure out at least
what questions we need to ask and what problems we need to solve  

* (Fred) concern that the RSE is not directly involved in some of the
side-conversations that feed input in to this conversation; need to
get the people interested in having a new stream 

* (David/John) would be good to lower expectations, remind people of
the hurdles involved and that this could not happen quickly

* (John) encourage the people who want this to put together a straw
man draft that would outline an issue report to focus the conversation

Boilerplates and TLP history

* there is an errata against 5741, and as it turns out the IAB doesn't
have an agreement on what the words meant

* does it require a new RFC to create new boilerplates?

* this is not a tooling issue

* the RFC must be updated to be clearer as to what it means to
"document boilerplate changes"

* prior to RFC 5741, all of this was entirely at RFC Editor
discretion, and the opposite is now the case; the RFC Ed's job is to
figure out how to do what is asked for, and warn people if what is
asked for is a significant problem to do; the RSE is still responsible
for the quality of the series, and bad/uninterpretable writing are not
going to help the series

IETF 85

* Breakfast on Friday, Nov 9

* will look for a WG slot that isn't covered

RFC Ed Liaison - HF will start to join the calls

AOB