[rfc-i] I-D Action: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-04.txt

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Mar 13 07:38:07 PDT 2012


In line ...

On 3/13/2012 9:42 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> On 3/12/2012 7:48 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> In line...
>>
>> On 3/12/2012 10:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> This member's role is distinct from any RSOC internal
>>>> organizational roles, such as the RSOC choosing to appoint a chair
>>>> from among its members.
>>>
>>> That's very elliptical. Why not just say "The RSOC will appoint a chair
>>> from among its members."
>>
>> It is elliptical because the IAB does not choose to mandate in an RFC
>> whether
>> the RSOC chooses to / needs to have a chair. (Not all IAB Programs
>> have chairs.)
>
> This isn't "some" Program. It's a specific one.
>
> Plausible choices for the charter are that RSOC will:
>
> 1. Have a chair mandated by its charter
>
> 2. Have one prohibited by its charter
>
> 3. Have an internal organization that it will determine.
>
> If a chair is mandated by the charter, the chair will be:
>
> a. Chosen by the IAB
>
> b. Chosen by RSOC from amongst its members
>
> The charter needs to have simple statement, like the above. Offhand, I
> would recommend the charter to mandate a chair and tell RSOC to choose
> from amongst its members.
>
>
The  document already says that the RSOC picks its own structure.  The 
point here was merely to emphasis that the IAB appointments do not 
change that.  I put that in as part of resolving some earlier concerns 
that the text might imply some sort of leadership role in the RSOC for 
the IAB members.

If folks think it actively detracts from the document, and are not 
concerned about the over-reading other folks did react to, I have no 
problem with the sentence going away.

>>>> Other IAB members may choose to be full
>>>> members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB. This consent is
>>>> primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the RSOC and
>>>> providing it with relatively stable membership, which will work best
>>>> if it is not too large a committee.
>>>
>>> This is very waffly. The IAB should, IMHO, make a conscious effort
>>> to keep out of RSOC details. Allowing some undefined number of IAB
>>> members to get immersed in the details seems to be exactly the wrong
>>> thing to do.
>
> +1
>
>
>>> In fact, I thought the RSOC was invented to help the
>>> IAB avoid micro-management. Frankly, if we have people in the IAB
>>> whose ambition is to deal with this rather than with technology,
>>> we need to have a strong word with NomCom.
>>
>> The RSOC is an IAB program. The IAB expectation is that some number of
>> IAB
>> members will be active participants in each and every IAB Program.
>
> That's fine. But that's covered by saying that the IAB appoints RSOC
> members.
>
> It does not need to specify the various pool lengthy and confusing
> statements about who it might appoint aren't needed.
>
> Much worse is to have stray IAB folk wandering in and out of RSOC.
> Either appoint them as members or don't.

Fundamentally, the RSOC role is still an IAB responsibility.  If the IAB 
chooses to behave in a way that makes of mess of its own job, that is an 
IAB failure and not an RSOC failure.
Unless we want to reopen the IAB Charter, this document can not and 
should not declare that IAB members can not be on the RSOC.  Hence, to 
say that the IAB should stay away from the RSOC seems a counter-factual 
statement.  The IAB should be involved, at least via some IAB members, 
in the RSOC.
The goal of the text as written is actually to let the community, and 
future IABs, know that it is important that the IAB be careful not to 
overstep and dilute the effect of creating the IAB.

Note that the document does not mandate terms or numbers for the RSOC 
appointees.  Thus, a truly foolish IAB could be parachuting in arbitrary 
members from anywhere.  This text serves to remind everyone involved 
that stability and avoiding micro-management are important parts of the 
picture.  If we remove this text, the parachuting is still the case. 
But the warnings are gone.

Yours,
Joel


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list