[rfc-i] RSOC oversight role

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Wed Feb 16 07:48:19 PST 2011

I think that it may be useful to separate two ideas.

I think it is probably important that the RSOC as a body not take a 
position on a policy that is under development.  We should figure out 
what we want, and then the oversight should take place to prevent us 
from shooting our own foot, etc.

Having said that, I do not think it is useful or consistent with our 
ethos to prohibit the RSOC members from participating as individuals in 
the discussions which lead to the policy formation.  There is some 
strangeness, but it is a strangeness we do all the time.


On 2/16/2011 10:38 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:44:18PM -0500, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>> In order to maintain a clear line between the oversight role of the
>> RSOC and the development role of the RSE, I recommend adding
>> the following sentence to Section 3 of draft-kolkman-rse-2011-02,
>> probably immediately after the 3rd sentence:
>> "RSOC and its members should abstain from direct participation
>> in policy-making or formation of policy-making committees, which
>> would interfere with RSOC's oversight role."
> I have two questions about the above.
> First, why do we think that it is important to maintain a clear line
> between the oversight role and the development role?
> Second, I parse the "which would interfere" in the proposed sentence
> as referring to "direct participation" rather than "committees" (I
> think correctly).  Why would such direct participation interfere with
> oversight?
> A

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list