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

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Jan 18 08:15:27 PST 2011


I mostly agree with Bob Hinden's response to Joel's comments, so I won't 
reiterate. However, I do want to point out one issue in Joel's note to 
help folks see the differences between the models.

On 1/14/11 6:08 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Paul, assuming I am reading things right, wants the committee to
> be responsible for making all policy decisions.

Yes.

> The committee is
> responsible for leading community discussion.

Maybe, but probably not. The committee is responsible for making sure 
the community discussion happens: otherwise, the community will be 
excluded from important decisions. In my mind, the most likely way the 
committee will make sure that the community discussions happens is that 
the committee says to the RSE "Please start and manage the discussion. 
Then, please bring back your findings. We'll be watching the discussion 
ourselves so we will have a sanity check on your findings."

The committee could initiate and run the community discussion, leaving 
the RSE out of it. That outcome seems unlikely, given that the committee 
members (regardless of how they are chosen) have other things to do and 
there is a paid RSE who should have the discussion-leadership skills 
sitting there.

> And for judging that
> discussion.

Yes.

> 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 "consent" part of Glenn's current document is unclear to me, given 
that the RSE is given the policy responsibilities. That is, if party A 
has the responsibility for the job and party B gives "advice and 
consent", what happens when party B doesn't give consent? You say "they 
fix it", but that doesn't appear in Glenn's current document. Glenn and 
I talked about this after his response to my proposal, and this topic 
might be clearer in his next draft.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list