[rfc-i] On two committees

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Dec 1 12:16:15 PST 2010

Olaf and Dave,

On 2010-12-02 06:20, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 12/1/2010 5:42 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> The IAB definitely has an oversight role,
> ...
>> 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.
> Olaf,
> The divide-and-conquer approach you note is appealing.  Anything that
> simplifies the current task is appealing.
> However there are two problems with any effort at separating RSE (or RFC
> Editor) oversight/supervision from the definition of the RSE or RFC Editor:
> 1. The IAB chose to have an entirely open community discussion and
> (apparently) consensus process, rather than to present a set of specific
> IAB recommendations for community review.  That invites a particularly
> free-ranging process. Further, the details of oversight and supervision
> are intimately tied to the design choices of the rest of the RFC Editor
> model.  If there are specific preferences or decisions that the IAB has
> in this arena, it ought to supply them to the discussion list.  Simply
> telling the discussion group that a portion of the design space is
> outside of scope -- without also declaring what the choices for that
> portion of the space will be -- hinders the ability to explore the
> reasonableness of choices that /are/ within scope.
> 2.  Someone is going to apply for the job of RSE.  Asking someone to be
> comfortable getting hired without knowing anything about their reporting
> structure is likely to bias the population of folk who will apply. 
> Anything that smacks of "We don't know who you will be reporting to or
> what the nature of their supervision will be" could be rather off-putting.

Olaf, thanks for your message. I'm not hung up on the beauty of my own proposal;
if the IAB proposes, and the community accepts, that the IAB appoints
an oversight committee (with a broad base of membership, not just the
IETF) I could certainly live with that.

Dave does have a point though - the reporting and oversight structure
for the future RSE should be well defined and stable, and not subject to
unexpected change by some future IAB. So I think it needs to be defined
by RFC5620bis rather than as an IAB-defined program. The practical difference
should be small.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list