[rfc-i] RFC Series Editor -- Job Description

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Dec 1 12:04:28 PST 2010

On 2010-12-01 17:51, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 7:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> The RSE reports to a member of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
>> Why *one* member? Would the RSE not take the liaison slot on the IAB?
> Different reporting models have been discussed.  Some discussions I've
> heard (not on the list) used this and I thought it worth citing for this
> draft, to see how folks react.
> There are two different questions.  One is whether to report to one
> person or to a committee.  The other is who, if one person.
> Reporting to a committee is a tricky business, except in particular
> circumstances, such as a CEO (and maybe especially then.)  A committee
> isn't focused, especially one like the IAB.  Yet a 'reporting'
> relationship needs focus and continuity.  So I thought it worth testing
> the waters to cite person-to-person reporting relationship.
> As for /which/ supervisor to cite, the only alternative that seems
> logical is the IAB Chair and the IAB Chair is already seriously
> overloaded.  So, the IAB can choose one among itself to have this
> on-going duty.  Note that this does not take away any of the ultimate
> authority or responsibility that the IAB has been assigned.

I agree, and my model where the RSE would report regularly to an oversight
committee is not intended to take away the IAB's ultimate responsibility
either. However, my second question is still relevant. Back in ancient history,
Jon or Joyce was on every IAB telechat; later it was Sandy from what
we now call the Production House; recently it's been Glenn. That seems
natural, but if the RSE is the regular IAB liaison, won't that automatically
serve as a reporting line?


> d/
>>>     - - - - - - - - - -
>>> RFC Series Editor -- Job Description
>>> The RSE reports to a member of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list