Subject: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:40:35 -0400

So, we think we have created the issues list, and we would like to start on one of the key questions that we believe doesn’t depend on other decisions.

Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the position is called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what duties they have?  
This is: https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future/issues/10 <https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future/issues/10>

Please send your thoughts on this subject.  We would actually appreciate +1s as we go through this process so we can try to gauge if we have any form of consensus.

We are basically looking for a yes/no.  Your opinions on secondary issues if you think there is such a position are, as always, welcome, but we are really trying at this point to see if we have consensus one way or another on if there is such a role.  This is an opportunity for those who haven’t spoken up yet to weigh in.

Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:59:40 -0400

Yes, I think that it is important that we have such a person.

Yours,
Joel

PS: While it is always tempting to argue about the way questions are 
posed, at this point I think you are doing as well as it is possible to 
make progress.  So lets take the question as you posed it.

On 9/30/2020 1:40 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> So, we think we have created the issues list, and we would like to start 
> on one of the key questions that we believe doesn’t depend on other 
> decisions.
> 
> Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the position is 
> called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what duties they 
> have?
> This is: https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future/issues/10
> 
> Please send your thoughts on this subject.  We would actually appreciate 
> +1s as we go through this process so we can try to gauge if we have any 
> form of consensus.
> 
> We are basically looking for a yes/no.  Your opinions on secondary 
> issues if you think there is such a position are, as always, welcome, 
> but we are really trying at this point to see if we have consensus one 
> way or another on if there is such a role.  This is an opportunity for 
> those who haven’t spoken up yet to weigh in.
> 
> Brian
> 
>

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:21:14 +0000

I believe we need a (paid) professional, yes.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:27:51 -0400

Well put Joel.

Yes, a paid professional <insert adverb here> is necessary.

Mike

On 9/30/2020 1:59 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> posed, at this point I think you are doing as well as it is possible 
> to make progress.  So lets take the question as you posed it.
>
>> So, we think we have created the issues list, and we would like to 
>> start on one of the key questions that we believe doesn’t depend on 
>> other decisions.
>>
>> Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the position 
>> is called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what duties 
>> they have?
>> Please send your thoughts on this subject.  We would actually 
>> appreciate +1s as we go through this process so we can try to gauge 
>> if we have any form of consensus.
>>
>> but we are really trying at this point to see if we have consensus 
>> one way or another on if there is such a role.  This is an 
>> opportunity for those who haven’t spoken up yet to weigh in.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:53:58 +0100

I'd answer yes for that one.

S

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:16:08 +0100

I give you a strong “Yes, but.”

1.	The responses so far have majored on “we need a (paid) professional”. While I agree with that point, I don’t believe it was the question asked in the email or on github.
2.	I also agree with the question as phrased, but I’d note that the title of the role is important both for recruiting (small point) and for how the person is perceived and heard in the wider community (larger point). So don’t neglect the name of the position.

A

From: Rfced-future <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: 30 September 2020 18:41
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader

Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:44:42 -0400

On 9/30/2020 4:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>  1. I also agree with the question as phrased, but I’d note that the
>     title of the role is important both for recruiting (small point)
>     and for how the person is perceived and heard in the wider
>     community (larger point). So don’t neglect the name of the position.
>

I like to refer to the position as RFC Series Editor, but really in my 
mind that's mostly translating as "the stuckee"... (only slightly tongue 
in cheek).

Mike

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:57:13 -0500

Changing the subject line for the benefit of the chairs, since this 
isn't really the question they asked.

On 9/30/2020 3:44 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> mind that's mostly translating as "the stuckee"... (only slightly 
> tongue in cheek).
>
If we're going to paint this particular bike shed right now and address 
Adrian's "larger point" of how the community perceives this role, then I 
think it would be ill-advised to include the word "Editor" anywhere in 
its description. I understand that this is a term of art used by the 
literary community, but I also assert (based on a huge number of 
conversations over the years) that its use in an engineering community 
lends the inaccurate impression that the role involves the literal 
(copy) editing of documents, which isn't the case. I think a 
misunderstanding by the community of the role has substantially 
complicated the relationship between the RSE and (at least) the IETF in 
the past. I would strongly suggest that we select a name that doesn't 
perpetuate this situation.

(n.b.: I'm explicitly not weighing in on the question asked by the 
chairs, because I'm still unsure about the best answer. I understand the 
arguments for; while, at the same time, the IETF has a long history of 
Thought Leaders stepping up from the community to lead discussions and 
author documents without having a specific designation or contract in 
place for them to do so, and then stepping back down and leaving room 
for the next Thought Leader who has fresh ideas to express. I think 
there's value to both approaches.)

/a

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:01:13 +0000

> The responses so far have majored on “we need a (paid) professional”. While I agree with that point, I don’t believe it was the question asked in the email or on github.

I was qualifying my yes.  Picking the “thought leader” the way we pick a WG/RG chair is wrong and I would be against that.

Yes for a professional, no for an amateur.

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:08:03 -0700

On 9/30/2020 10:40 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>  rea
> a
> appreciate +1s as we go through this process so we can try to gauge if
> we have any form of consensus.

I am not sure that we need "a thought leader" for providing the
publication expertise. I observe that changes in the series tend to be
big steps, such as changes in formats, or changes in reference methods.
I could easily see hiring publication experts to produce an audit and
explain all the wrongness of our ways, and then have a working group
drive for consensus on solutions. That would not require having a
permanent expert position.

-- Christian Huitema

I

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 13:23:10 +1300

> Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the position is called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what duties they have?  

Yes
  Brian C

> This is: https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future/issues/10>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 08:00:39 +0200

Adam, Adrian, Mike,

I’ve opened Issue 24 on how the role is named.  I would suggest that it is a good lead in to discussing what the job actually is (Issue 11), so please don’t stop discussion.

Eliot