[rfc-i] Alternate Proposal for RFC series management
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Fri Jan 7 14:52:21 PST 2011
Based on what I know about what the nomcom process does well and badly,
I just can not see how that process can do a good job selecting
individuals for the oversight committee, no matter what we call the
committee. (That is not to say that well meaning people will not be
appointed if we choose the nomcom. I presume the nomcom will do the
best it can.)
I also have a problem with having the oversight committee be responsible
for the "setting" of policy, rather than reviewing and approving (or
not) policy as recommended by the RSE. It is very hard for a committee
to perform active management. Committees react to problems. They do
not find them. They do not diagnose them well. And committees do not
lead well. It is very hard, for example, for a committee to lead and
interpret a set of discussions. (And this has nothing to do with the
competence of the committee members.)
As such, you either end up putting a lot of work on the committee chair
(who is an unpaid volunteer), or you end up, in practice, giving a lot
of the strategy and policy leadership responsibility to the RSE anyway.
I would rather have the RSE be a leader, execute the responsibilities,
and report appropriately so that we can tell that what is being done is
consistent with the views of the relevent communities.
I do not care what wew name any of the groups or jobs. I am concerned
that we recognize the historic realities (from industry, non-profits,
and our own experience) about what committees are and are not good for.
On 1/7/2011 5:29 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Greetings again. Andrew's questions about executive-level management helped me clarify some of my thoughts on why I prefer that management to be in the REOC instead of the RSE. Basically, even after reading Glenn's motivations document, we haven't seen any strong need to add the large amount of individual management that he has proposed so far.
>> Given that, I have an alternate proposal, given as changes to RFC 5620. Even if only some pieces of this are adopted, I hope it helps move the discussion forwards. Comments and criticisms are welcome.
> Thanks, I think this does help move the discussion forward. Comments below.
>> --Paul Hoffman
>> New body: RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
>> Responsible for overall series management and stability
>> Creates policy for the RFC series
>> Six members
>> One representative from each stream
>> Two selected by Nomcom with staggered terms
>> Gives significant input to IAOC on selection of RFC series contractors
>> Appeals of RSOC decisions go to the IAB
>> Takes input from the IAB on overall direction of RFC series
> Good name.
> I like the idea of RSOC being responsible for policy and the RSE (name TBD, the paid employee/contractor) implementing the policies. Much like the rest of the IETF.
> Do you mean that the RSE reports to the RSOC? If it is to be the RSOC, then the RSOC needs a chair, so that the RSE report to the chair who is responsible for their performance reviews, compensation, etc. Like the IAD reports to the IAOC chair. If you had other thoughts, it would be good to specify it. Hiring real people requires a real management plan.
> I am neutral on the nomcom. It could work if the requirements for membership on the RSOC are well specified, but I could see that this might put too much load on the nomcom.
> I think there would also be value if someone from the IAOC served on the RSOC. My thinking is that this approach worked well for the IAOC. The IETF chair, IAB chair, and ISOC president are voting members on the IAOC. It helps to add the right perspective to the discussions. Given the desired coordination with the IAOC, having someone from the IAOC makes sense to me.
> Also, I think the RFC production center lead, should also be a liaison (or similar) to the RSOC. It encourages the free flow of information and improves efficiency.
>> New person: RFC Series Administrator (RSA)
> I tend to agree with Brian that RFC Series Executive Director (RSED) might be a better title.
>> Replaces the RFC 5620 "RSE"
>> Contractor who reports to RSOC
>> Takes direction from RSOC on new initiatives
>> Primary jobs of the RSA:
>> Acts as public face on RFC series
>> Leads discussions of proposed policy changes
>> Reports results to RSOC for decision
>> Edits RFC series documents
>> Style guide and production process guide
>> Explanations of the RFC series (new)
>> Makes rfc-editor.org web site more useful to different audiences
>> Handles errata system
>> Creates monthly public reports on Production Center and Publisher
>> Performs sampled reviews of Production Center processing of drafts
>> Mediates disputes between streams
>> Reports on dispute and results to RSOC and public
>> Mediates disputes between authors and Production Center
>> Reports on dispute and results to RSOC and public
>> Expected workload is 15 hours/week
> I think 15 hours a week is light, and I would prefer to start higher until we have experience. I think it will be full time for the first period of time.
> The rest seems about right to me.
>> RSAG becomes advisors to both RSOC and RSA
>> Alternative: RSOC does bidding and selection of RFC series contractors
>> Would first require buy-in from ISOC
>> Would then also require change to BCP 101
> This would be a big change to the IASA model. It would likely require separate budgets for IASA (minus RFC editor work) and RFC editor work, with separate submissions to the ISOC. We end up with two groups dealing with contracts, budgets, reporting, etc. I think it would be simpler to keep the contracts in the IAOC and make sure there is close coordination between the groups, and let the RSOC focus on RFC policy.
>> 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