Hi Paul,
At 09:25 20-06-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Errr, maybe. The IESG could easily choose someone else; many
individuals in this community would be fine at being the Tao editor.
Remember, I was the third editor of the document.
Yes. :-)
Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to
be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.
I would not put too many administrative details in a RFC as it will
be read literally. Here's some suggested text which I'll leave to
author discretion:
The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.
The changes can be discussed on the tao-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing
list.
The editor submits the revised version of the Tao to the IESG for approval.
The revised version is published by the IETF Secretariat at
<http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.
What was not clear is the how changes make it into the
document. Instead of using two steps, you could keep the URL above
as the stable one and use your discretion for the editing part. I
removed the tao-possible-revision.html as "we" do not want to see a
RFP where the IETF gets billed for such work. :-) The editor can
work out some details such as automatically picking changes from SVN
and pushing it to some work-in-progress web page with the IETF
Secretariat. I did not mention "community" in the above. Feel free
to add that. There is some overhead in the above. As people will
probably get bored after a while, it should be less work.
Earlier versions of the Tao were made obsolete, not moved to
Historic, so I thought it was most appropriate to do that here as
well. FWIW, the definition of "Historic" in RFC 2026 is for
specifications, not descriptive documents like the Tao.
RFC 2026 is the alternate reality of the IETF. It's convenient to
cite it every now and then. If the IESG asks, you could tell it that
the information in FYI 17 is simply and obviously obsolete and fits
its published "statement" for Historic. I take it that nobody would
refer anyone to RFC 4677 except for historical reasons.
I'll +0 the draft to avoid changing the state of consensus.
Regards,
-sm