[rfc-i] Discussion about Committees and RSE models
bob.hinden at gmail.com
Tue Jan 18 12:37:27 PST 2011
>>> In case anything I've written could be misinterpreted, my view
>>> is that well-chosen and well-chaired committees are good vehicles
>>> for sorting through issues, reaching decisions, providing guidance,
>>> and reviewing performance.
>>> However, committees, in general, are less successful at *executing
>>> and following through* on decisions. That's why company boards
>>> appoint CEOs, why the IASA appoints an IAD, etc.
>> I agree. The same model for an oversight committee and an RSE will work well as
>> you outline. The RSE executes and follows through on decision made by the over
>> sight committee. The oversight committee approves the policy, the RSE implement
>> s it.
> I think this last overstates a good committee's role.
> 90% of the time, company boards act on information brought to them by
> the company management team. They chew on it, they change aspects, etc..
> But the driving force is the executive team.
> Similarly most IETF committees have someone or some small team that is driving
> (that someone may evolve over the committee's life).
> So, trying to make this concrete. It would be the job of the RSE to show
> up and say "the following policy issue has arisen, here are the possible
> approaches I've been able to identify and I suggest we pursue approach Z."
> In that context, I would modify Bob's statement to be:
> * the RSE *proposes* and implements policy
> * the oversight committee approves
I think that is consistent with what I (and I think Brian) had in mind and is what I would expect to happen. Proposals for new policies or policy changes can come from the RSE, the oversight committee, the community, etc. The final form of the proposal would come from the RSE in most cases.
More information about the rfc-interest