[rfc-i] REOC membership
bob.hinden at gmail.com
Fri Jan 21 13:10:59 PST 2011
On Jan 21, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>> - 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.
More information about the rfc-interest