[rfc-i] RSOC oversight role

[Brian E Carpenter]

IMHO, Andrew's version is a bit more legalistic than we really need,
but I could live with it.

   Brian

On 2011-02-17 08:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 08:41:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> RSOC as a body should abstain from direct participation
>> in policy-making or formation of policy-making committees, which
>> would conflict with RSOC's oversight role. If individual members
>> of RSOC participate in policy-making, they should be aware of
>> possible conflict with their RSOC role and should be prepared
>> to recuse themselves from subsequent RSOC decisions if appropriate.
> 
> I'm still slightly uncomfortable with the above, but I've got my fire
> roaring and my wordsmith tools out, so how's this:
> 
>         The entire membership of RSOC should not participate directly
>         in the same policy making committee, or the formation of such
>         committees, because that could cause future conflicts with the
>         RSOC's oversight role.  If an individual RSOC member
>         participates in such policy making, the member must be
>         prepared to recuse itself from subsequent RSOC decisions
>         impinging on areas where the member participated.
> 
> ?  I know it's legalistic, but that seems to be what this worry is
> about.  Indeed, the last sentence shows partly what I'm resisting
> here: this is a special case of the general rule that responsible
> committee members recuse themselves whenever they have a potential
> conflict.  I'm not sure what's special about this particular case that
> it needs special calling out.
> 
> There are some differences with Brian's text I think important,
> however.  The problem isn't with RSOC as a body participating; we can
> rule that out.  But if every member participates individually, that
> would be as bad in terms of potential conflict.
> 
> I know, I know: we should have a rule that a majority isn't allowed to
> either.  But we're not designing a judicial system here.  If we get to
> the point where that's a problem, the entire construct is irredeemable
> and we'll have to toss it all.  I don't think we should make a lot of
> specific rules where good judgement and the destruction of one's
> reputation for reasonableness is a better defence.
> 
> A
>