[rfc-i] Makeup of the REOC

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jan 12 17:51:32 PST 2011


Greetings again. One of the basic assumption of my proposal is an REOC 
that consists of representatives from each stream and a smaller number 
selected by Nomcom.[1] Glenn's current proposal is based on a small 
committee defined by the IAB, none of whom may be from current streams 
approving bodies, who have substantive knowledge of technical writing 
and publications, and substantial experience at using RFC Editor 
services as a author or editor.

The contrast between the composition of the two groups is significant, 
and affects Glenn and my choices as to where to put the responsibilities 
for the RFC series. In my model, the REOC has a very direct and 
significant stake in the series and thus can be trusted with day-to-day 
management (to assure that their documents move through with high 
quality) and long-term vision (to assure that their documents remain 
relevant for the long term). In Glenn's current model, the REOC doesn't 
have nearly as much stake in the series and thus work better as 
oversight for an active manager with more responsibilities.

As Andrew pointed out in an earlier thread, there are serious costs both 
to another volunteer group that has shared responsibilities (such as I 
am proposing) and to a group with blurred lines of responsibility and 
reporting (such as Glenn is proposing). We need to weigh those costs 
against the benefits of the whole model, including what this means the 
RSE has to do, and not just of the formation of the boards.

Although I still think my proposal is more sustainable than Glenn's 
current proposal, I can also see a more mixed model where the RSE has a 
few more stated responsibilities and the REOC has fewer. However, that 
type of mixing seems likely to cause conflict between the RSE and REOC 
in the long run. Instead, I think making essentially all the 
responsibilities in one side or the other makes for a cleaner update to 
5620 and gives the IAB a much cleaner way to exercise their overall 
responsibility for the RFC Editor.

Thoughts?

--Paul Hoffman

[1] FWIW, I somewhat agree with the comments that have pushed back on 
the Nomcom additions that I proposed. I think Nomcom could handle them 
fine, but I also agree that maybe these additions are not needed and add 
unnecessary complexity.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list