RSOC Meeting, IETF 84, 02-Aug-2012

0.   Agenda bash
1.	Budget justification
2.	Revised Statement of Work for the RFC Publisher
3.	Editorial Balance
4.	RSE Performance Evaluation discussion (HF to leave the room)
5.	Feedback on where HF doing well/poorly as RSE to date

----

Attendees
Fred Baker
Nevil Brownlee
Joel Halpern
David Kessens
John Klensin
Nevil Brownlee
Olaf Kolkman
Ole Jacobsen
Alexey Melnikov
Ray Pelletier

0. Agenda bash
* intro of new IAB appointee to the IAB - David Kessens

1. Budget justification

* consider adding the whole internationalization/author checking
problem (starting with a more advanced grammar checker; what tools are
available to check the problem? Ole contracts with a copy editor,
often copy-editing from english got a better english

* consider adding Scholarly Reputation and DOI or JCR, but this might
feed in to URN?  This would be a modest amount of money to reserve,
but will not move forward without further discussion with other groups

2. Statement of Work 

* Ray and Heather and Fred will make this statement tighter, present
final copy to the RSO

3. Editorial balance

* Ole: often copy editors change the grammar/punctuation and that
often changes meaning (obviously not ok); the RPC should be making
these kind of corrections and there shouldn't be much argument about
that

* (Fred) the boundary we don't want to cross is changing meaning
versus changing clarity

* (John K) when JCK complains, they are respectful, collaborative
disagreements; this was not a cooperative disagreement

* (Fred) the RFC Ed is within its purview to require a certain amount
of collaborative behavior

* (Joel/Fred) when we have a -bis document that has been so
controversial that the WG is only allowed to edit very specific
sections changed, then two options are that should be recognized is
that an author can be assigned early OR a document can be published
with ONLY the changed section

** (Fred) if we can't change the text of the document for whatever
reason, a section that says "the RFC editor is not touching these
sections for these reasons" is valid 


4. Feedback
Show more leadership, otherwise a good job