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

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Mar 13 11:10:27 PDT 2012


This I-D (I hope it will become an RFC) is not the charter for the RSOC> 
  It is a description of the RSOC.  The RSOC is an IAB Program.  It is 
not some separate organization chartered into existence by this process. 
  (Otherwise, it could not currently exist.)

The point of the text was to describe the fact that since the RSOC is an 
IAB Program, the IAB can appoint (and remove) members as it chooses. 
Thus, IAB members can not join "at their whim", but rather with the 
permission of the IAB.  The fact that one IAB member is monitoring the 
RSOC list but not participating in the discussion is also with the 
knowledge and permission of the IAB.

I guess what is really bothering me is that if I remove the text, none 
of the facts to which you are objecting will cease to be the case.  The 
text is here so that everyone (the IAB, the RSOC members, the RSE, and 
the community) understand what rules we are working under.

The other choice would be to try to write very specific rules, and 
really create the RSOC as a separate body.  That would
a) require significant effort
b) probably get the rules wrong, since we rarely get precise rules right 
the first time
c) require an update to the IAB Charter

Yours,
Joel

On 3/13/2012 1:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> On 3/13/2012 7:38 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>> 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
>
> The charter needs to /specify/ things. Commentary like the text being
> discussed, tends to add more confusion than clarity, since it is winds
> up being specification not commentary.
>
> To the extent that this text is trying to say "in addition to appointees
> to the RSOC, any IAB member is allowed to participate whenever they feel
> like it" I'll suggest that that is a highly counterproductive model. I
> trust that my phrasing points in a direction that makes the downsides
> clear, but will elaborate if it's too obscure.
>
>
>> 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 RSOC organizes itself and chooses it's own chair, then that's pretty
> clear. Elaboration on that is typically counterproductive, IME.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> That's always true of one supervising body over another. One of the
> things that reduces the potential problem is clarity of boundaries. RSOC
> should have very clear boundaries, responsibilities, accountability,
> etc., with respect to its supervising body.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> That's not in any of the language I or anyone else used in this thread.
>
> Saying that IAM members can be on the RSOC is different from saying "the
> IAB appoints RSOC members, some of whom may be IAB members" and then
> adding "any IAB member may participate in RSOC at their whim"... The
> latter is a counterproductive arrangement along a number of group
> performance parameters.
>
>
>> Hence, to say that the IAB
>> should stay away from the RSOC seems a counter-factual statement.
>
> Again, no language in this thread has promoted that statement.
>
> What I, at least, /am/ saying is to distinguish members from non-members
> and to restrict participation of non-members. My own recommendation is
> that the presence of non-members should be at the invitation of RSOC.
>
> That members are composed variously of IAB members and others is a
> distinct point.
>
> Stated differently: Define a group. Give it a charter. Give it oversight
> -- reporting, accountability and presumably the ability to reverse
> decisions. Define membership in the group. Let the group operate with
> administrative integrity; do not build in confusion.
>
>
>> The IAB should
>> be involved, at least via some IAB members, in the RSOC.
>
> fine. i haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> huh? 1) I don't know what that means. 2) I don't understand how the
> problematic text does that.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>  From what I can tell, it doesn't accomplish that goal. Perhaps the more
> constructive path is to have language that specifies the core attributes
> needed amongst those who are appointed, whether IAB members or not? (I'd
> offer a list but I'm not sure what you guys think they should be...)
>
> d/
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list