[rfc-i] Candidates for RSOC sought

Glenn Kowack Glenn at RiverOnce.com
Fri Feb 25 08:57:18 PST 2011


Joel, I believe, raises the key point here, one that I'll try to break down
to the role and interactions:

The RSOC is an oversight body.  Once an item is raised (by anyone),
and agreed as an item of policy investigation and development by the
RSOC and the RSE, then the RSE is to do the "leg work" of outreach,
forming committees, leading the discussion (which, like the Citations
committee may be significantly delegated), and so on, with a heathy
level of community participation.  While this is progressing, and during
the "final review" of the process, the RSOC is to ensure that the various
parts of the community have been heard.

In that context, RSOC members will be free to join in on the discussion
(a few as direct participants, but most on an occasional basis), but must,
per Joel's and others' comments, be careful to not have too great a number
of RSOC members work directly on the issue. If that were to happen, then
there would not only be recusal issues, but the actual legitimacy of the
RSOC begins to erode; some even might accuse RSOC of a land grab,
"substituting themselves for the community."  Not a good scenario.

So this "limited direct participation" approach is consistent with
	- the advisory and review role of the RSOC.
	- the practical (potential) recusal problem,
	- delegation to the RSE - letting him do his job - without which there
		is no 'oversight', and
	- ensuring that it is actually the community that is heard and that
		the community can unambiguously see that.

thanks,
-Glenn 
___


On Feb 25, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> In a formal sense, I agree with Dave Crocker about what ould be cleanest.  And in some other community, we might be able to do that.
> Given the tremendous breadth of skill and participation in this topic we have (NOT) I do not think we can afford to exclude the RSOC members as individuals from the policy discussions.
> 
> The one thing that seems important to me, in order to preserve teh RSOC oversight role, is to note that the RSOC as a body should not be taking a position in policy discussions.  It is very hard to oversee a policy decision process for which you as a body have already formed a clear conclusion on the answer.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 2/25/2011 9:24 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:37:52AM -0500, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> ...
>> 
>> In particular,
>> 
>>> So I'll suggest a broader rules:
>>> 
>>>      An RSOC member must recuse themselves from RSOC review and approval
>>> of any issue about which they have been active.
>> 
>> I think this rule deeply wrong.  Taken quite literally, it means that
>> every RSOC member will be by definition unqualified to evaluate
>> anything that comes before them.
>> 
>> A
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list