[rfc-i] Short summary of IAB discussion
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Fri Jan 7 05:06:23 PST 2011
Last wednesday the IAB discussed Glenn's recommendations. I wouldn't want to keep you in the dark until the minutes appear so here is a somewhat informal update of about the discussion that took place on Glenn's recommendation.
During the discussion there were 3 concerns that surfaced:
1- The description and responsibilities of the REOC. The IAB agrees that the REOC is an appropriate vehicle to delegate the IAB responsibilities but will review whether the delegation does not involve the responsibilities of other bodies, such as the IAOC. In addition the model goes a bit to deep into specifying the RAOC, a future version should allow for the role to evolve. IAB members will work with Glenn to propose specific text.
2- The concern that Andrew raised on this list (Subject "Executive-level management": What is the purpose of the RSE?") was echoed. I would paraphrase that concern as the choice between a conventional manager versus a community leader. We have not had sufficient time to discuss the issue in detail.
3- The recommendations focus strongly on a publication professional, is a community member not a better match, in particular when leading the series in an evolving environment is needed.
Some of my personal notes, intended to be value neutral:
- I believe that issue 1 is relatively easy to address.
- Concerns 2 and 3, which IMHO are connected, need a few cycles. And I believe the onus is on the IAB to be explicit about the strong choice Andrew is referring to in is email. I believe that what Andrew exposes is that we setting precedent by hiring staff with strategic responsibilities. In the mean time, it seems that enumerating the responsibilities, authorities and activities of an RSE, without attaching an actual label seems a way to get some clarity.
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2210 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the rfc-interest