[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-00

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Wed Oct 22 14:08:09 PDT 2008

Hash: SHA1

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> John,
> On 2008-10-23 07:07, John Klensin wrote:
> ...
>> We have discussed the outlines of an alternative that involved
>> strengthening the Editorial Board, treating it as a
>> semi-autonomous subsidiary of the IAB (somewhat like the way the
>> IRTF is treated), and giving it the key role in selecting the
>> Independent Submission Editor/ Reviewer/ Approver subject to
>> some advice and consent process involving the IAB and/or IAOC.
>> The IAB may not like that suggestion, and it certainly has
>> drawbacks.  But, since I think we agree that the current
>> proposed plan has drawbacks too, let's not pretend that it must
>> be chosen and accepted because there are no plausible
>> alternatives to it.
> Actually, if we really care about the independence of the
> Independent stream, and about its similarity to an academic
> peer review process, I rather like that idea. There would
> have to be care to avoid the model looking like a self-
> perpetuating oligarchy, of course. It may be something we
> should come back to in a year or two, but leave the door open
> to in the current document.

I don't think the IAB should have role in the Independent stream at all,
excepting when documents overlap IETF work (i.e., deconfliction).

The idea of academic review is interesting, and even if not taken
literally, leaving this in the hands of an entity composed almost
entirely of industrial members is not a step forward.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list