[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Apr 11 16:38:27 PDT 2009
On 2009-04-12 05:57, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> 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.
Yes, that seems to be right.
> Actually I view the Group/Committee as more than an advisory role to
> the RSE. I see the RSE reporting to the Group/Committee.
No. Please no. The RSE already has to report on contractual matters
to IASA. It's very hard to imagine the RSE not having a direct liaison
presence in the IAB itself; in fact RFC2850 requires this.
I don't see why the IAB should wriggle out of its role as overseer.
The Advisory Goup advises the RSE. Advice and oversight are very
> 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.
That would be redundant. If the RSE needs 'day-to-day' oversight we
will be in very deep trouble. Oversight should mean regular checkpoints,
but that seems more like monthly or less. Why on earth can't the IAB
continue to do that directly? It's not a big deal.
>> 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.
I'm not sure about this. Again, if the group is advisory to the RSE,
who is executing the current SOWs, it won't necessarily be able to
give disinterested advice to IASA. It can certainly provide insight
into what is and isn't working in the current SOWs.
But really my bottom line is one sentence in Leslie's draft:
"The RSAG is chartered by the IAB."
Not if it advises the RSE. If it advises the RSE, the RSAG has to be
chartered by the RSE. If I was the RSE (which I faithfully promise
will never happen), I would not accept the existence of an advisory
group which I didn't charter and which didn't report to me.
[Full disclosure: I am a current member of the RFC Editorial Board.]
More information about the rfc-interest