[rfc-i] On two committees

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Wed Dec 1 05:42:01 PST 2010

On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Quoting two pieces of your mail:

> To me, that says that a very explicit goal should be to extract the IAB from
> the details of oversight here (just as BCP 101 extracted the IESG and IETF Chair
> from the details of oversight of the Secretariat etc.). And of course it's
> Management 101 that you do that by delegating the routine oversight to
> another committee.


> The IAB definitely has an oversight role, and has clearly been
> executing it for the last three years or so. My point is that the community
> has consistently asked for *more* technical architectural guidance from the IAB,
> and less time spent on "administrative" work. Also, my recollection from
> my years in the IAB is that without exception, every single new IAB member was
> shocked by the amount of non-technical issues that the IAB spends time on.

Without debating (agreeing or disagreeing) your observation, I would urge to not try to reorganize the IAB through an RFC Editor model: If the IAB has an oversight responsibility then allow the IAB to organize that oversight. 


That said, I believe the concept of the oversight committee fits straight into a program. (See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07731.html for what programs are about).

Currently that text mentions the RFC Editor Model as a responsibility, just to call out that we are spending a lot of time on it. If it turns out that the IAB needs long-term continuity and attention then that responsibility can be cast as a program. Programs allow non-IAB membership and leadership. 

It might well be that the committee as is proposed is a good fit and as such it may be that de-facto this is the structure we end up with (calling it a program makes little difference). The difference would be that the IAB can re-organize the way it implements oversight without having to go back to the RFC-drawing board.


PS. Understanding that I wear multiple hats and am conflicted: I would not like to see this discussion develop into an IAB reorganization thread but stay focused on the issue at hand.


Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20101201/f90fda13/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list