[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model
sm at resistor.net
Sat Apr 11 15:16:16 PDT 2009
At 00:39 11-04-2009, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>of the RFC Series. I would like to give a view from my perspective as
>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.
My comments are more about exploring the possibilities instead of
favoring a specific proposal at this stage. The name you proposed
suggest a supervisory role instead of advisory. This results in an
additional layer in the decision making process.
>The RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) would 'carry the torch' for
>the RFC Series.
>It would oversee the work of the RSE, who would undertake the day-to-
The RSE would then be a executive-level manager (Item 2 of Section
3.1) and be answerable to the RSOC.
>Policies would be adopted by the RSOC. Initial appeals of RSE actions/
>decisions would be
>from the RSE to the RSOC and then to the IAB.
If the RSE is a manager, you cannot have an appeals process like
that. I'm excluding any contractual questions as they don't fit in
here. The RSOC is responsible for the RSE actions. Initial appeal
goes to the RSOC and then to the IAB.
>The RSE will propose community discussions on important issues and
>facing the RFC Series to the RSOC for its approval to take to the
>community. The RSOC
>might also initiate that discussion with the RSE.
It will then be up to the RSOC to "take proposed changes to the community".
We have been talking about "community" throughout the discussion. I
note that it is not labelled as "IETF community". Does anyone want
to tell me what community it is? :-)
>The RSOC would act as the nominating committee in a community
It's not a community selection process if the RSOC identifies the
candidate and the IAB makes the appointment.
>to identify and qualify candidates to be the RSE. The RSOC would make
>to the IAB, which would make the appointment. The RSOC would also
>community input and subsequent IAB approval the Statements of Work for
>each of the
>RFC Series functional areas, including the RSE, the Independent
>Submissions Editor, the RFC Production Center and the RFC Publisher.
I'm open to the above.
At 10:57 11-04-2009, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>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.
It's a bit more than empowering the group to perform the function on
a day-to-day basis as you mentioned that policy would be adopted by the RSOC.
More information about the rfc-interest