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

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Mon Apr 13 00:11:45 PDT 2009


On 12 apr 2009, at 01:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>
> "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.



[on personal title]

I think you touch upon the kernel of the proposal. Let me try to  
explain why I think the committee is an IAB chartered activity.

In my view, the reason why we started to work on the committee is to  
provide a body that is the carrier of the "RFC Series Flame" and while  
the IAB has the responsibility of oversight the point was made that  
the IAB members are currently not selected for RFC/Editorial expertise  
and that the IAB does not have the cycles to consult the RSE in times  
of crises.  Another important goal was to gain long term consistency,  
a consistency that spans the RSE contract cycles and therefore may  
also outlive the individual RSEs.

With this committee the IAB offloads some of its responsibilities  
while maintaining the oversight.
The committee would advice all concerned parties involved on issues  
regarding the RFC Series.

However the committee does not have any decisive power. In case of  
conflict between the RSE and a third party. I would foresee a decision  
by the RSE being reviewed (non-binding) by the committee, and  
appealable to the IAB.

It could indeed be that the RSE does not accept the advice and  
guidance from the Committee. If that happens it is because the RSE  
doesn't need the advice because (s)he is doing an excellent job  
independently, or because (s)he happens to _need_ the advice but is to  
stubborn to accept it. The IAB in its oversight role would be able to  
distinguish between the two, specifically when the committee is  
chartered by the IAB and would then be able to execute its oversight  
role.

Since we are suggesting names, as a non native speaker I am not sure  
if "Council" would cover the kind of behavior we are expecting from  
this body: "RFC Editor Council", or REC if we want a TLA [RFC5513].


--Olaf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090413/61837367/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list