[rfc-i] Developing consensus, episode 2: Who chooses the Production Center and Publisher

Ted Hardie ted.ietf at gmail.com
Thu Feb 10 07:57:42 PST 2011

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Olaf Kolkman <olaf at nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:55 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> could be modified to
>>> Based on the RSE and evaluation team's ongoing input, the IASA selects ,
>>> negotiates and contracts and has final authority.
>>> Is that close enough to what you're looking for?
>> Well, explicitly declaring 'ongoing' input is an improvement.  But 'input' is
>> really just advisory and this still allows the IAOC to negotiate details that
>> the RSE considers unworkable.
> We are stuck with the fact that the IASA has final authority and I understand the point you are making (such conflict would IMHO ultimately result in an RSE walking away). I interpret what you seem to be calling for is that that final details are  done by IASA with the RSEs input being taken seriously and being involved. To me that is captured in the word 'cooperation'.
> So would s/input/cooperation/ make more clear that this is a mutual process.?

For what it is worth, I think "ongoing cooperation" is fine as a term.
Both to me indicate that we believe that an IASA ignoring the RSE
during the negotiation would be wrong.

But I want to point out an issue in David's language:

"I'll repeat:  anything that saddles a supervisor with conditions they consider
unworkable is a bad arrangement.  The supervisor has hands-on expertise for the
topic, as well as responsibility for the long-term performance.  They must not
be ignored. Your wording permits ignoring them."

We agree we don't want IASA ignoring the RSE, but the model I think
we're striving
for leaves one and only one body responsible. That body is the IASA.
That leaves them
in the hot seat for making a decision if the choices available aren't
ideal.  They
may have to negotiate a contract that the RSE doesn't like if other constraints
limit their choices.  I think the ongoing "cooperation" in Olaf's
wording ensures
that the reasoning isn't a surprise to the RSE and hopefully keeps the
on a good footing.  But the lines of authority have to be clear here. The RSE
may conclude its a bad arrangment and the IASA has to take that into account,
but the community is expecting the IASA to be the final authority on this.

At leas that's my view.


Ted Hardie

> --Olaf
> ________________________________________________________
> Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
>                                       Science Park 140,
> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list