[rfc-i] RESEND: RFC Editor Model Version 5 and revised RSE SOW
sm at resistor.net
Sat Apr 25 14:25:53 PDT 2009
At 13:08 25-04-2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>That is far too weak an approach IMHO. Firstly, what on earth does
> If the Series Editor decision is not satisfactory, then the the
> matter must be registered with the RFC Series Advisory Group.
>actually mean? Either an appeal decision is appealed to the RSAG, or
>it isn't. In fact, it can't be, since the RSAG isn't superior to
>the RSE. So this adds no value. Also, the sentence is in the passive
>tense - who decides a decision is unsatisfactory, and who causes the
>'registering' to occur? The whole process is wishy-washy, and doesn't
>give the oversight body *any* power whatever to intervene in bad
>decisions (except by causing the RSE to be fired, I suppose).
Version 5 does not hold its ground from a process perspective. I
presume that it was written in such a way to be wishy-washy. The
purpose of the RSAG (from the Model) is to provide guidance. It
doesn't have any formal oversight role; the IAB retains. The RSAG is
required to make the dispute and its advice publicly
available. That's the only departure from the usual role of an advisory body.
>There's no need to reinvent a new form of wheel. Just cut and paste
>from section 3.5 of RFC4071. That defines a very clear procedure with
The RFC Editor Model is being viewed in contractual terms. That
doesn't fit within the responsibilities assigned to the role. I
don't think we should have policy decisions go through a process
designed for administrative support. Your proposal at least provides
a clear resolution path.
It will be an awkward situation if the RSE is fired as the RSAG, as
an advisory group, cannot step in then. There is a lot that has been
left unsaid in the Model. The Model might be adopted because of the
deadline and "fixed" once the RFC Editor structure is operational.
In an ideal world, the existing RFC Editor Board would comment on the
Model as they are better place to determine whether the proposal is
workable in practice. They will also share the blame if things go wrong.
More information about the rfc-interest