[rfc-i] On two committees
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 16:32:44 PST 2010
In the model I have in mind, the RSE could choose
to appoint an advisory committee to advise him or her,
entirely at the RSE's discretion. Actually I reckon that
anybody, doing any job, can do this. No need for BCP text
The other part of my model is to introduce community-based
oversight in some form, just as we did when reorganising
IETF administration, which is why I suggested an Oversight
My not-hidden concern here is to ensure that there *is*
oversight while offering the IAB the chance to get out
of the details. Note, I am *not* criticising the IAB for
stepping up to the mark over the last couple of years;
somebody had to. But isn't it odd for a group with
"architecture" in its name to be responsible for documents
such as RFC 5741?
All details TBD of course, but that is my top level concern.
On 2010-11-27 09:53, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I'll send other comments under another thread, but this thread seems
> like a good place to talk about the number of committees.
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:12:52PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> OK, let me try again. Why did you pick this path instead of just
>> changing the RSAG to have the responsibilities you outline and
>> changing the way they are chosen? What is the advantage of having
>> the document specify "here's a new committee, and the old
>> committee's name is reused for a new purpose with a new way of being
> I think I agree with Paul. In any case, I don't get the need for this
> new committee along with the possibly-but-maybe-not RSAG.
> It sort of looks to me like the REOC is a somewhat expanded version of
> the function suggested for the RSAG in RFC 5620, except that members'
> terms are shorter and with a less clear statement that they're
> selected by and, if necessary, removed by the IAB.
> As I did during the last round, I'm feeling very much the lack of any
> reasoning in the document for why particular suggestions are made.
> What problem is the REOC trying to solve, and why is it distinct from
> the RSAG? I don't understand the need for it, and it looks to me like
> it creates yet another opportunity for community participants' time to
> be sunk into overhead activities. I guess I sort of think that the
> RSAG is supposed to be the RSE's own advisors, but I don't understand
> why it's important to have an official list of who's whispering in the
> RSE's ear: if there's anything actually nefarious going on, then it
> will be secret anyway, and otherwise it's just decoration.
> So, I don't see why we need to have yet more officially-empanelled
> committees here. My impression is that the IETF community is busily
> turning itself into a heavyweight bureaucracy, and anything that tends
> in that direction makes me nervous. Having two different committees
> at this level sticks out to me as such bureacratic development. I
> don't feel terribly strongly about it, but in the absence of arguments
> for it, I'd say that one of them could be eliminated.
More information about the rfc-interest