[rfc-i] REOC membership
dthaler at microsoft.com
Wed Jan 26 10:39:02 PST 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-
> editor.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 1:11 PM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: RFC Interest; Bob Hinden
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] REOC membership
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> > 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
> >> 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.
My issue with such a restriction has always been that the IAB itself is a stream-
approving body, and the REOC should be a committee/Program organized by
the IAB. Saying that IAB members must not be part of the REOC doesn't
seem to be solving any problem.
More information about the rfc-interest