[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model
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.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest