--On Thursday, July 02, 2015 14:51 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:
Too late. The decision was made and implemented before the
IAB asked for a final review of these document. So, whether
assigning DOIs to the RFC Series is a good idea or a bad one,
whether the format chosen for the DOI suffix is optimal or
not, etc., the discussion is essentially OBE. At least as
the IAB has chosen to structure things, it needed to occur
with the RFC Editor and/or RSOC [1] many months ago.
The discussion with RFC Editor and RSOC has occurred. IAB
asked to put the document on hold until after DOI were
implemented by RFC Editor. This project just completed.
Yes, I know all of that except that IAB decided to hold the
document --and the community review outside the RSOC and RFC
Editor -- until the DOIs were implemented and deployed.
To be very clear:
(1) If anyone thinks it is worthwhile for the community to have
reviewed this idea, either in the large ("should we be doing
this at all?") or the small ("should we use a DOI suffix that
contains alphabetical characters and that requires parsing if
there is ever more than one relevant series?"), then it is much
too late to have either discussion. If anyone believes that not
allowing that community review represents bad judgment that is
serious enough, the remedies are discussions with the Nomcom,
calls for resignation, and/or recall petitions, not debates
about those aspects of this document that assume the action has
not already been taken.
(2) There may be circumstances in which "act first, apologize
later if needed" is an appropriate strategy. If that is what
the IAB intended here, then the call for comments should be
clear that the decisions have already been made and deployed and
should identify just what sorts of comments the IAB is actually
interested in or would find helpful. Even now, I think it would
be helpful if the IAB were to issue a revised/updated call for
comments that makes the circumstances clear. Of course, if
someone believes that the IAB (or RSOC, or RFC Series Editor)
applied the "act first, apologize later" policy inappropriately
here, see above.
john