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

Ray Pelletier rpelletier at isoc.org
Mon Apr 13 07:18:45 PDT 2009


On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:

>
> 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.

Concur with foregoing.
>
>
> 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].

I think we want to avoid 'REC'.  And 'Council', as it suggests an  
advisory body.  How about RFC Series Committee - RSC.

Ray
>
>
>
> --Olaf
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list