[rfc-i] [IAB] Comments on RSE models

Dave CROCKER dhc at dcrocker.net
Fri Jan 14 16:59:42 PST 2011



On 1/14/2011 3:56 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 1/14/11 2:53 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>        When I mean 'X implements' I do not mean that
>> X does the hands-on work herself but that she is the responsible
>> person for making sure the work happens and is properly budgeted and
>> prioritized.
>>
>> In your model, who is is responsible for implementation in that
>> meaning?
>
> The REOC. In my model, the REOC is responsible for overall series management and
> stability and creates policy for the RFC series, and the RSE..."takes
> direction from RSOC on initiatives", which would cover new, ongoing, and changed
> initiatives such as "a big question got answered".
...
>         However, the
> difference in the models is that in mine, if the RSE fails at it or takes too
> long, it is the REOC that is responsible; in Glenn's, I think the REOC does not
> have the responsibility to make sure the RSE is doing what the community asked.


One nice thing about this exchange is that it is discussing the work and not the 
labels.

There does seem to be comfort with having an REOC.  And it appears that there is 
comfort with having it hold a significant degree of authority.

I'm not sure as sure but it also appears that folks are comfortable with having 
the REOC be something like the top of the RFC Editor chain of command, except 
with the IAB being available for appeals (dispute resolution).

That is, I think that both models actual rest a significant degree of ultimate 
authority in the REOC.

However, I'm not really able to tell what the pragmatic responsibilities and 
authorities actually are for the RSE in either case.

No matter what is formally specified, the details of the relationship between 
the REOC and the RSE will be subject to their own adjustments.

The questions are where things start from and what the likely "dynamic range" 
is?  Get someone who only knows how to edit documents and they are not likely to 
know much about running a technical document series.  Get someone who has no 
hands on experience with producing documents, and they aren't likely to have 
much insight into the pragmatics

On the assumption that we do not want a mechanical drone in the job, there needs 
to be some meat on the bones of the RSE's job.  It has to have real challenges 
and an ability to effect real improvements.

So, what can the RSE do on their own initiative, without first checking with the 
REOC?

    *  Can the RSE resolve a prioritization issue for the Publication Center, 
without checking with the REOC?

    *  Can the RSE resolve any other Production or Publication issues, without 
checking with the REOC?  If so, what kinds?

    *  Can the RSE initiate work on a policy, without first get approval from 
the REOC? (But notice I said "initiate work" rather than "decide".)

What other sorts of questions about specific activities will help to distinguish 
between the two models and help understand the kind of person (background, 
skills, style, goals) is likely to apply for the RSE job and do it well?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list