[rfc-i] new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Mon Nov 29 11:39:07 PST 2010


Brian:

>>>> I would also be interested why the Oversight Committee got introduced between the plenary presentation and the current document. I haven't seen a lot of public discussion that argued for such major chance.
>>> At the risk of adding to confusion, let me
>>>
>>> a) Confess that this was my suggestion, in a short conversation
>>> with Glenn on the Friday in Beijing. The reasoning was that it
>>> seems to me that, in order for the IAB to perform its duties acording
>>> to its charter (approve an organization and approve general policy),
>>> there needs to be something bearing responsibility between
>>> the RSE and these two high level up/down decisions by the IAB.
>>> Clearly, the IAB shouldn't be involved in day to day oversight
>>> and policy formation, and the RSE shouldn't be freewheeeling
>>> between the hopefully rare occasions when the IAB has to take
>>> one of those up/down decisions.
>>>
>>> b) Show my original text on this suggestion. It isn't by any
>>> means perfect, but this was my raw input:
>>>
>>>>> 5.1. RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC)
>>>>>
>>>>> This committee exercises routine oversight over the RFC Editor
>>>>> and RFC Series.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.1.1. Duties
>>>>>
>>>>> The REOC has the following duties:
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Support the RSE in the process of community consultation.
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Support the RSE in developing new or modified policy proposals on an
>>>>>    "advise and consent" model.
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Support the RSE in presenting general policy proposals for approval
>>>>>    by the IAB.
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Receive and review regular progress reports from the RSE.
>>>>>    [Note: this is *not* the IAB's job.]
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Support the RSE in regular reporting to the community.
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Promptly bring any serious issues with the Series to the IAB's attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>  * When required, participate with the IASA in the RFP and contracting
>>>>>    process for components of the RFC Editor function.
>>>>>    [Note: this is *not* the IAB's job.]
>>>>>
>>>>>  * When required, act as the hiring committee for the RSE, in liaison
>>>>>    with IASA.
>>>>>    [Note: this is *not* the IAB's job.]
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.1.2. Membership
>>>>>
>>>>> The REOC shall have one voting member appointed by each major RFC stream
>>>>> (IETF, IAB, IRTF, Independent) and one voting member appointed by
>>>>> the IETF NomCom and confirmed by the IAB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terms will be two years renewable (with three one year terms initially, to
>>>>> stagger the renewals).
>>>>>
>>>>> The RSE shall be a non-voting member.
>>>>>
>>>>> There may be a non-voting IASA liaison member.
>>>>>
>>>>> The REOC shall elect its chair among the the voting members.
>>
>> Brian: why did you pick this path instead of just changing the RSAG to have the responsibilities you outline?
> 
> Because the RSAG is a collection of people appointed by fiat. I would
> compare it to the Transition Team that preceded the IAOC.
> 
> For those who aren't aware, I was a member of that transition team
> and am a member of the RSAG. But I prefer community processes to populate
> standing committees.

Yes, but the RSAG remains in place too.  The IAOC replaced the
Transition team, but the parallel does not seem to be happening here.  I
must say that I am confused by the result.

Russ



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list