[rfc-i] Developing consensus, episode 2: Who chooses the Production Center and Publisher
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Sat Feb 5 19:06:06 PST 2011
I think that while the cases you describe could arise, they are NOT best
dealt with by more precise rules.
The general structure we have discussed, involving
a) the RSE providing useable input to the work definition process, based
on both the RSE's skills and community input
b) with the IASA owning the responsibility for contracting, including
final selection and negotiation
c) with the RSE to provide advice and assistance as the IASA deems
useful in those later stages
seems to make sense.
There are already procedures in place to cope if anyone involved does
something extremely stupid. Trying to tie peoples hands sufficiently so
that they can not do stupid things, seems to me inevitably to lead to
their hands being sufficiently tied that they can not do smart things.
On 2/5/2011 9:20 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 2/2/2011 5:12 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> It has to be IASA, unless we amend BCP 101 (which I don't believe we
>>> should do).
>>> The IAB also must approve the choice, unless we amend BCP 39 (which I
>>> don't believe we need to do, either).
>> That my view as well. It's important that the RSE and streams be
>> involved in
>> this process, but the responsibility needs to be with the IASA.
> The specifics of responsibility and authority definitely need to be made
> clear, here, but the issues are not at all straightforward. The IAB has
> a core responsibility, and no one is talking about taking it away. And
> the RSE must manage the ongoing work.
> If the RSE insisted on a particular candidate, would the IASA choose
> someone else?
> If the RSE declared a particular candidate unfit for the job, would IASA
> still hire them?
> Same questions for IASA's actions relative to IAB opinions?
> For those familiar with some relatively recent history, they will
> recognize that my questions are not purely theoretical.
More information about the rfc-interest