[rfc-i] Comparatively minor questions on the motivations

Glenn Kowack glenn at riveronce.com
Mon Jan 3 00:31:28 PST 2011


On Dec 21, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:

> I just finished reading the motivations document, and have some additional
> clarifying questions, which are minor compared to the questions Olaf and Ted
> summarized.
> 
> 1) A half-time appointment would presumably lead to the RSE having something
>    else for the other half-time.  However, Section 2 states "This person must 
>   have no other interests."   Can you clarify to reconcile these two statements?

By 'interests' I meant they should not be subject to some sort of bias.  That
means they genuinely do not obtain any material benefit from some other
role (e.g., being an employee of the provider of Production Center services).
However, in this community, it is common to wear multiple hats.  So, I could
envision their having some other role in the community, as long as it wasn't
too close to their RSE position (e.g., above).

I was envisioning that the RSE would fill the other 50% of their time in a
position outside of the greater IETF, but that's not a strict requirement. The
particulars will need to be watched carefully, though.

> 2) I still find it confusing as to what "consent" of the REOC really means in 
>    practice, in this proposed model.   What happens if they don't consent, or
>    if they have no consensus on whether they consent?  (This is actually more
>   a comment on the model than on the motivations, but the motivations 
>   discusses it and doesn't answer it for me.)

I would expect the RSE to not proceed on something without the support of
the REOC.  So, 'consent' does mean some practical ability to constrain the
RSE.  However, if the RSE and REOC genuinely found themselves unable
to come to agreement on one issue or another, the best thing would be for
them to take that issue to the community for further debate.  If it eventually
came out that the community was split in the same way that the RSE and
REOC are split, then the issue can either sit there (if this is practically
acceptable) or I could see in some circumstances that they might ask the IAB
to act as tie-breaker.  This seems reasonable and consistent with community
and IAB practices (please let me know if that doesn't sound right).

I envision the RSE and REOC working transparently. I would except them to
regularly take discussions to the community -- whether or not there has been
prior significant RSE-REOC (dis)agreement.

> 3) I found Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.5 (and to some extend 3.2.1) to be confusing,
>   arguably contradictory, with respect to whose job it would be, in your 
>   recommendations, to lead various review meetings.

I aimed to structure things so there would be no question about the RSE being
responsible for the performance of the overall RFC Editor.  That includes his
not having to fight anyone else for "control of the airplane". Whatever regular or
irregular meetings or reviews that occur should not undercut that status. That's
the driving principle.

In short, I would expect the RSE to lead regular reviews of any of the components
of the RFC Editor, e.g, the Production Center.  Separately, there will be external
reviews of the overall RFC Editor, which would implicitly review some aspects of
the performance of the RSE.  External reviews should be led by the IAB with
participation of the IAOC and the RSE.

> BTW, I found the motivations draft far more clear than the model draft
> on what your recommendation is for the RSAG.   This at least answered
> my confusion on that point.

Thanks.

regards,
Glenn
___

> 
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> 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