[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model
rpelletier at isoc.org
Sat Apr 11 10:57:12 PDT 2009
On Apr 11, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> > . 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
>> 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.
Actually I view the Group/Committee as more than an advisory role to
the RSE. I see the RSE reporting to the Group/Committee. The name
would be as the IAB would view it. I was suggesting RFC Series
Oversight Committee (RSOC) as the IAB empowering the group to perform
that function on their behalf on a day-to-day basis based on the
membership's expertise (who they appoint) with specific reporting and
approval requirements to the IAB as the IAB deems fit.
> 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.
More information about the rfc-interest