[rfc-i] [IAB] Comments on RSE models
bob.hinden at gmail.com
Mon Jan 17 16:46:13 PST 2011
> So, to return to what I see as an important difference between Paul and Glenn. Paul, assuming I am reading things right, wants the committee to be responsible for making all policy decisions. The committee is responsible for leading community discussion. And for judging that discussion. The RSE then does what the committee says. In Glenn's model, the RSE is responsible for those activities. He then brings his conclusions to the committee for their advice and consent. If they think he is wrong, they fix it. They still have the responsibility.
> The two structures, while they are similar, operate very differently in practice. The later draws on the strength of committees for providing additional perspectives and careful review. The former requires the committee to perform management, which much evidence from both within the IETF structure and outside says is between a bad idea and ineffective.
It may not that different. It depends on what "advise and consent" means in Glenn's model. If it means that the oversight committee needs to approve the RSE's conclusion, then the two are not that different. The RSE couldn't take any action until it was approved. This doesn't seem that different to me from saying that the oversight committee is responsible for making all policy decisions. In both cases, the RSE could be the person leading the discussion, summarizing the conclusions, and developing policy recommendations. In both cases, policy issues might arise from the RSE or from the oversight committee.
"Advice and Consent" usually means that the committee approves something the executive brings to it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent .
I think the underlying question is who makes the policy decisions. The RSE or the oversight committee. Using the words "advise and consent", then I read Glenn's proposal as saying the oversight committee approves the policy.
My preference is for the RSE (the paid professional) to not make policy decisions. I prefer a volunteer committee to make policy decisions, like the rest of the IETF. I think Paul's model is consistent with this, Glenn's infers this, I think.
More information about the rfc-interest