[rfc-i] Some questions about the RFC Editor restructuring plan
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Mon Aug 25 08:55:20 PDT 2008
I have reread the thread and we are at a point where I think a few
minor details have be addressed, such as changing the name from the
Independent Stream Approver to the Independent Submission Editor.
I also have the feeling that the overall distribution of tasks within
the 4 functions of the model is not contentious. At least nobody
argued against that.
The open issues are mostly doubts about the implementation of the
model, mostly with respect to the interactions between the various
functions. In particular there was a question about the instruments
hat the RFC Editor has to its disposal to assume responsibility of
over the series in case the production house is not cooperative.
Although I understand the question and its background I am not sure
wether the model should address those explicitly or not.
One could address that by giving the IAOC some implementation guidance
(I've suggested some wording in the thread). However the question is
if that would provide the IAOC with to little maneuvering space.
Another way to address these issues is by explicitly recognizing that
all roles (except maybe the publishing house, which is the most
mechanical of the functions) are subject to some sort of policy
oversight by the IAB (cf RFC4844 sect 3.4).
I am trying to wear a moderator hat and keep a somewhat neutral stance
although in all honesty I think that the model as written currently
allows to address the issues during implementation, where they should
Please read the archive (starting at: http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2008-May/000581.html)
and weigh in if you have an informed opinion. We need to drive this
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20080825/ac5c7da0/PGP.bin
More information about the rfc-interest