[rfc-i] RFC Editor Model: RSE Responsibilities
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Wed Jan 21 13:46:33 PST 2009
Replying to the list but quoting John, since he, as often, eloquently
identifies the question:
> Independent of what particular words are chosen, the question of
> whether the RSE gets authority to go with whatever
> responsibilities we try to heap on the job has been one of the
> ambiguities (or deficiencies) in the "Model" all along.
> Personally, I don't care very much about the words, but I
> believe that relationship has to be absolutely clear in both the
> Model and in any RFIs/ RFPs that go out.
I think that everybody agrees that the RSE has a role in coordinating,
identifying the issues where the noses need to be set in the same
direction and then call upon the actors to make progress to that
direction. The main question is in the ultimate control the RSE has
doing this: can she hire or fire?
My approach route in this, and I think various others too, has been:
- No authority to hire and fire.
The reason for that is twofold:
- Hire and fire are not part of "our" culture. We have structures in
so that decisions are made by appealable bodies. We tend not to
"hire and fire" power in one single person.
- It is the IAOC that 'owns' the contracts. The IAOC should make the
decisions to hire
and fire, where applicable, under advisement of the IAB. The reason
for involving the
IAB is that the IAB is ultimately responsible for the Series (not
the RSE), and is
an appealable body.
Besides, in all practical cases the recommendation from the RSE to
hire, or more importantly fire, would be very hard to ignore.
I would be perfectly happy to add a sentence to the model that
explicitly says that the RSE has no authority to hire and fire.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090121/50456c4a/PGP.bin
More information about the rfc-interest