[rfc-i] RFC Editor Model Version 5 and revised RSE SOW
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 14:28:28 PDT 2009
On 2009-04-27 11:30, John C Klensin wrote:
Cutting to the chase...
> I'd rather have a vaguely-defined procedure that might work and
> that would allow for lots of informal mediation rather than
> copying a precisely-defined and formal one that does not appear
> to work. Wouldn't you?
I certainly prefer that a dispute should be resolved by
informal mediation, and that anything more formal should
be a last resort.
I agree that the recall procedure and the IAOC appeal chain
haven't been exercised. Otoh, the appeal procedure against
WG Chair and IESG decisions has well-oiled wheels, as you and
I both know from experience. So I continue to prefer that some
words should make it clear that an aggrieved author can formulate
an appeal to the IAB, after dealing with the RSE/RSAG first
On 2009-04-27 12:07, John C Klensin wrote:
> I can live with that.
> --On Monday, April 27, 2009 02:00 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
> <olaf at NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
>> > On 27 apr 2009, at 01:30, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> >> And, in case it isn't clear, I agree with SM about the cutoff
>>> >> date for the initial population of the RSAG (or whatever it is
>>> >> called). If things work perfectly, then six months (or
>>> >> whatever) should be no problem, and I have no problem with
>>> >> setting that as a goal. On the other hand, if they go badly
>>> >> enough that the system, as conceived today, has to be
>>> >> significantly revised, having to debate whether to shut off
>>> >> the institutional memory at the same time is not in anyone's
>>> >> best interest.
>> > The model document now reads:
>>> >> Within one year from the time the RFC Editor function
>>> >> transitions to
>>> >> the new model and after consideration of the operation of
>>> >> the new model in practice, the interim RSAG and RSE will
>>> >> formulate a recommendation to the IAB about the regular
>>> >> composition and selection
>>> >> process for the permanent RSAG
>> > I think that a recommendation at that time to keep the
>> > situation as-is and re-assess in another year from that point
>> > would be perfectly fine. But maybe that is just me.
>> > --Olaf
More information about the rfc-interest