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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 12:38:49 PST 2010


On 2010-11-30 08:39, Russ Housley wrote:
> 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.

That's why my preference after a bit more thought is simply to drop the RSAG
as a formally defined body, but (as I think Dave Crocker said) ensure that
there is no exclusionary language to prevent the RSE taking on advisors.

    Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list