[rfc-i] I-D Action: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-04.txt -3.1 & 4.3
sm at resistor.net
Tue Mar 13 09:02:40 PDT 2012
At 07:29 13-03-2012, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>Earlier versions of the document had text that indicated that the
>initial RSOC was going to do certain things first. Inherently,
>whatever the initial RSOC was going to first it has already
>done. Therefore, the wording needed to be adjusted. The earlier
>wording was put in to reflect a desire for the RSOC to suitably
>involve the larger community in its early process. It did so. So I
>tried to capture that with minimal violence to the existing text,
>and without implying any error on the part of the RSOC for not doing
>something they were not mandated to do.
Thanks for the explanation.
>This text is a dirdirective to the RSOC for the near future. It
>could be dealt with by the IAB stating it outside the document. But
>it is an objective that is seen as important to the community, and
>therefore is captured here.
>The sentence makes somewhat more sense (although i can well believe
>it could use editing) in context. The context is the section about
>disputes. The RSE is being given explicit authority to keep the
>trains running on time, and to get enough information to know
>whether there are bigger issues, even if that requires making some
>unilateral decisions. Without this text, and with the unfortuantly
>capable imagination of the commentors, it was possible to envision
>situations where the whole RFC Editor process could be driven to a
>halt. And that was unacceptable.
Ok. I'll suggest text:
The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure the
functioning of the process; and while there is an evaluation of
current policies to determine whether they are appropriately
implemented or need adjustment.
I am not sure whether I captured the intent correctly.
More information about the rfc-interest