[rfc-i] REOC membership

[Russ Housley]

Glenn:

>>> - The IAB should avoid appointing:
>>> 	- current stream approver committee members, to allow focus and sufficient time to satisfy the
>>> 		requirements of REOC membership, and
>> 
>> I don't see the need for this rule.  Your text says that it because they won't have enough time.  Anyone who is willing do the job will need to commit the time.
> 
> The REOC is not merely advisory; it's oversight of the Editor entails real exercise of authority. 
> REOC decisions well might come into conflict with demands by a stream. The recommendation 
> above is therefore necessary to avoid conflicts of interest. It would not be good for a large 
> fraction of the REOC to frequently recuse themselves because they're on both sides of a 
> controversy.  This point probably needs to be a hard rule, whereas most of the other points 
> here are guidelines.
> 
> Regarding time: I was taking into account reports that many I* leaders are massively 
> overworked and that many others have the similar knowledge of broad requirements through 
> prior experience. I was thinking of enlarging the base of people involved, but really didn't make 
> a strong case for it with my terse language.  I hear that the IETF is putting too much load on 
> too few people, and that this is a reason it is so difficult to find candidates for some positions.
> 
>> I also think there is value in having a few people involved in the streams be on the oversight committee.  Even as far as having someone from every stream.
> 
> As long as 'involved' doesn't conflict with the point above.  Note that the Overview doesn't say 
> much about voting structure, other than the possibility of there being a non-voting IASA liaison.  
> In time, more distinctions between liaison and regular members might be made, and voting and 
> non-voting status might be used
> 
>>> 	- standing members of the various other I* entities. Doing so is unnecessary and could make it
>>> 		more difficult for members to focus on Editor issues.
>> 
>> Likewise, I don't see the need for this rule.  Please explain.
> 
> See above.

Since the IAB is the appeal body for REOC decisions, there is already a built-in way to resolve severe conflict.  Therefore, I do not think we should go out of our way to exclude anyone.  We have already had a situation where IAOC members have held other I* seats.  No conflict surfaced.  Had there been an appeal of anIAOC decision to the other body, that dual-hatted person would have to recuse.  Not a big deal.

Russ

Russ