[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model

[Russ Housley]

Ray:

> >   . Name of the committee -- "Framework Committee" meant nothing
> >     to some people.  Proposed "RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG)"
> >     (per Russ' suggestion to rfc-interest)
>
>The 'Advisory Group' name suggests a different governance relationship
>than I think is needed.
>I would consider the group more the RFC Series Oversight Committee
>(RSOC), which I believe
>better suggests its role and responsibilities, and its position vis a
>vis the RFC Series Editor
>and the IAB better.

As a counterpoint, let me say why I suggested the name that I 
did.  The IAB is already responsible for the oversight of the RFC 
series as a whole, and so it seems to me they are also responsible 
for the oversight of the RFC Series Editor.  I think that "Advisory 
Group" is more appropriate because the group is intended to help the 
RFC Series Editor by offering a broader perspective.  As Leslie said 
in here earlier message, "keeping the flame."

I think it is important that the name of this group not be perceived 
as moving the oversight responsibility away from the IAB.  Rather, 
the group is to advise the RFC Series Editor and also share their 
perspective with the IAB as needed.

Ray, I do like the addition that you suggest at having this group 
develop job descriptions for appointed positions (these would go to 
the IAB as part of their confirmation process) and having this group 
develop Statements of Work (SOW) for contracted components (these 
would go to the IAOC for the procurement process).  If others agree 
with the SOW development, then it is a good idea that an IAOC member 
as an ex-officio member to provide an important linkage for the 
procurement.  I'm not sure it needs to be the IAOC chair.  I think it 
can be the chair or a liaison from the IAOC.

Russ