[rfc-i] Some questions on the model and the motivations
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Jan 3 11:21:54 PST 2011
Well, I didn't read Glenn's answer as a flip answer.
If there is no individual in charge of the coherence of
the series, the various streams will, over a period of years,
drift apart in both form and style. We all know that management
by committee doesn't work, so the IAB (or the RSAG, or an oversight
committee) will not be able to prevent this happening. For example,
after a while, one of the streams might decide to switch to PDF-only;
if the production house said no, the stream could just declare
independence and move on. A good series manager would be able to
avoid such an outcome. You could assign the RSE's individual tasks
elsewhere, but not this overall responsibility.
Of course, you could decide that this doesn't really matter, but if
keeping a single consistent series is the strategic goal, I believe
that having an individual in charge is a necessary condition.
On 2011-01-04 06:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I presume I am misreading your amplification Russ.
> My problem is that as I read it, the only answer I could see would be
> the construction of a full alternative model, specifying where all tasks
> would be performed, how controls and interactions would be handled, and
> all of the moving parts thereof. As both you and Olaf understand that
> would be a major task, that can not be what you are asking him to
> provide. (If the IAB wishes to assign a task of that magnitude to
> Glenn, I would presume that they would discuss it with him.)
> What am I missing?
> Thank you,
> On 1/3/2011 10:16 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>> 1.b) Suppose we would redesign the model to get rid of the RSE, what
>>>> responsibilities would need to be assigned ownership, where would
>>>> you assign those responsibilities in the current 'greater IETF'?
>>> I do not believe this would be wise and do not have a recommendation
>>> for doing so. If I had been
>>> able to find a way to do this without an RSE I would have
>>> recommended. Since this is contrary to
>>> the way the Editor has operated for the last 40 years, we are
>>> entering unknown, and potentially risky,
>> This comes across as a flip answer. I really think it deserves a more.
>> RFC 5260 in Section 3.1 considers two very different approaches for
>> selection of an RSE. A third was considered while writing RFC 5260
>> that made the RSE position part of the production center. Since the
>> exact nature of the position has been so elusive, I think that Olaf
>> asked a question that needs a well considered answer.
>> Further, in your response to 1.a, you provide a list of things that
>> might go wrong if the RSE seat is left empty. But, you do not answer
>> the second part of Olaf's question which is closely related to this
>> question. Olaf asked: "... what would the community notice in weeks,
>> months, and years?" I'd like to see your thoughts on that, and I'd
>> like to expand Olaf's question. If the RSE seat is empty, would the
>> whole job fall to the IAB, or is there some portion of the job could
>> easily be handled by the RSAG without too much interaction with the IAB?
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest