Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- start [2018/07/06 22:38] – rsewikiadmin
+++ start [2022/06/10 18:30] (current) – arusso
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==== Immediate Priorities (in order) ====
+**NOTE: This wiki is an archive of RFC Series Editor (RSE) pages created from 2012-2019.\\
-  - [[rfcformat|RFC Format]]
+For current information, please see the [[https://www.rfc-editor.org|RFC Editor website]] or [[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki|RPC wiki]].**
+---------------------------
+==== Priorities for 2019 (in order) ====
+  - [[rfcformat|RFC Format]]
+  - [[fifty|Fifty Years of RFCs]]
+  - [[stylemanualrfc|2019 Update of Style Manual RFC]]
+  - [[outreach|Develop an outreach plan]]
+  - Clarify issues around Streams and Statuses
+  - [[satsurvey|Customer Satisfaction Survey experiment]]
+  - Revise SLA (possibly a 2020 item)
 ==== The RSE Project List ====
@@ Line 8: / Line 18: @@
 ^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^
 | C | [[acronym|Acronym review]] | The current list of approved acronyms (one that do not need to be expanded in RFC) needs to be reviewed and brought up to date or entirely discarded |  |
+| A | [[fifty|Fifty Years of RFCs]] | RFC to document and other announcements in relation to the fiftieth anniversary of RFC 1 | September 2018 |
 === Medium-sized projects (6-18 months from start of project) ===
 ^ Priority ^ Handle ^ Brief Description ^ Target start ^
-| A | [[auth48|AUTH48 changes]] | can we improve efficiency of AUTH48 process by potentially clarifying policy and implementing new tools to streamline the process?  | June 2018 |
+| A | [[auth48|AUTH48 changes]] | can we improve efficiency of AUTH48 process by potentially clarifying policy and implementing new tools to streamline the process?  |  |
 | B | [[errata|Errata process review]] | submitting errata and citing errata is non-trivial and the overall process around the errata service needs to be reviewed |  |
-| C | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are not indexed in online indexes such as: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar | |
+| C | [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are not indexed in online indexes such as: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore | |
 | C | [[shortlivedref|Short-lived references]] | some references might not be long-lived enough from an archival perspective, and as a result, the RFC Editor may need to keep an archival copy; need to understand potential copyright and distribution issues (work in progress on this, prior to RSE appointment) |  |
 | B | [[citation|Citation Library Updates]] | Formalize RFC Editor support of the citation library |  |
-| C | [[EU-ICT|EU-ISA]] | Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) and the RFC Series |  |
+| A | [[satsurvey|Customer Satisfaction Survey experiment]] | Develop a new survey process to evaluate the RPC |  |
-| C | [[code|RFC Source Code Repository]] | Research issues around the creation of a source code repository for the RFC Series |  |
@@ Line 26: / Line 35: @@
 | A | [[rfcformat|RFC Format]] | Determine the future of images, character encoding, and archival format | March 2012 |
 | B | [[EFL|EFL Author support]] | Work with RPC, community to find ways to support EFL authors more effectively | ongoing  |
-| B | [[rfced-infrastructure|Infrastructure/Data Accessibility]] | Review the overall architecture behind the editing and publication process for the RFC Editor, and refactor the environment | January 2016 |
+| B | [[rfced-infrastructure|Infrastructure/Data Accessibility]] | Review the overall architecture behind the editing and publication process for the RFC Editor, and refactor the environment | ongoing |
+| B | [[outreach|Outreach]] | Create an outreach plan for the RFC Editor | ongoing |
@@ Line 33: / Line 43: @@
 |   | [[xml-outsource|Outsourcing XML review]] | Should the review of the XML file be outsourced? |
 |   | [[metadata-preservation|Understanding the role of metadata in digital preservation]] | Review of digital preservation policy and existing RFC metadata |
-|   | [[context-search|Search response improvements ]] | Providing additional context to search returns, e.g. pointers to WG |
+|   | [[context-search|Search response improvements ]] | Providing additional context to search returns, e.g., pointers to WG |
 |   | [[exp-RFC|Create an experimental space for RFC formats or features ]] | Consider having a place to test new formats or features for RFCs |
+|   | [[code|RFC Source Code Repository]] | Research issues around the creation of a source code repository for the RFC Series |  |
+|   | [[EU-ICT|EU-ISA]] | Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) and the RFC Series |  |
@@ Line 48: / Line 59: @@
 | [[stylemanualrfc|Style Manual RFC]] | Update of current accepted practice to be published as a new RFC | revised style guide approved for publication April 2014  |
 | [[stylemanualweb|Style Manual web]] | Creation of proto-policies, guidelines, and flexible pages |  |
-| [[archive|Digital Preservation Policy]] | Review of archival process and policy for the Series |  |
+| [[scholarindex|Scholarly indexing]] | RFC are now properly indexed in Google Scholar | August 2014 |
 | [[DOI|DOI assignment]] | DOI assignments have been requested for RFCs as a way to improve the scholarly reputation of the Series | DOIs added April 2015 |
 | [[website|RFC Editor website]] | update content, look and feel to the RFC Editor website. | New site published October 2015 |
@@ Line 54: / Line 65: @@
 | [[dig-sig|Digital Signatures]] | digitally signing RFCs | project shelved due to concerns re: revocation October 2016 |
 | [[dig-arc-pol|Digital Archive Policy]] | develop framework for how to handle digital preservation | two partnerships (National Library of Sweden, Computer History Museum) in place; RFC 8153 published |