[rfc-i] RESEND: RFC Editor Model Version 5 and revised RSE SOW

[SM]

Hi Brian,
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
>effective oversight.

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.

Regards,
-sm