[rfc-i] Alternate Proposal for RFC series management
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Jan 7 11:26:51 PST 2011
On 1/7/11 10:43 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> I think your model might work. I don't see the need to involve the
> nomcom however. Speaking as an actual editor/publisher I do indeed
> rely on a (public as well as "secret") committee of people who tell
> me what I should or should not publish. That's a content advisory
> role and of course the RSE is not primarily dealing with content.
> But the key point is that the committee is comprised of people with
> the right skills. How you actually get that expertise is a different
> matter, but I don't think nomcom is the right mechanism.
I chose Nomcom because it seemed like having the RSOC be composed only
of stream folks seemed too limited to server the broader RFC-reading and
RFC-writing community. So, this splits into two questions:
- Do we want more than just the streams represented on the RSOC?
- If yes, how do we chose the non-stream members?
For the latter, we could have the IAB (wearing their
keepers-of-the-RFC-series hat) appoint additional people, for example.
Nomcom seemed cleaner, but there are certainly other options for getting
people with the right expertise to be there. Or, we might answer "no" to
the first question, at which point it is much simpler.
More information about the rfc-interest