[rfc-i] new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available

SM sm at resistor.net
Mon Dec 20 22:05:01 PST 2010

Hi Brian,
At 12:47 12-12-10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>But that RFC is too long. I think there are some arguments for writing
>new, more concise, text.

We have to decide the level of detail we want to get into to make the 
text shorter.  Part of the debate about the recommendations was 
because the basis for it was not apparent from the text.

>I assume that's an editing oversight and the REOC was intended.


>The IAB is chartered to "approve the appointment of an organization to
>act as RFC Editor". The IAD is chartered with "negotiating and maintaining
>contracts or equivalent instruments with outside organizations". I think
>the proposed text is compatible with both.


>Any employment is a contract of sorts. What's your point?

My point is that if you hire someone, it might be better for the 
person not to be in the direct firing line of the community given 
that this is a community that can be quite vocal.

>As others have said, yes. I tend to agree with Ted Hardie that
>80% of the actual work is concerned with document flow, but external
>relations, even beyond the Internet technical community, are
>inevitably needed.

Yes.  It would be good if one does not lose sight of the core mission.

I gather that "low-cost high-impact opportunities to promote the 
series" means that the RFC Series Editor cannot be sent to exotic 
locations. :-)

>The IAB *is not* responsible for running the series. Its responsibility
>is extremely general in nature: "The IAB must approve the appointment
>of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed
>by the RFC Editor." Yet again, that is the entirety of the IAB's charter
>responsibility. No more and no less, and I think this draft reflects
>it quite well.

The way the draft was produced reflects the "fact" that TRSE has been 
volunteered to sell an unpalatable idea to the community.

>Having an oversight committee is good practice, since we want the RFC series
>to reflect the needs of the Internet technical community.

Having an oversight committee can help take over some of the IAB 
workload.  I would like it to be clear that the REOC is the IAB's 
baby.  If there is a problem, the IAB is ultimately responsible for it.

My reading of what you said above is that the oversight committee is 
there to ensure that the RFC Series reflects the needs of the 
Internet (technical) community.  I read "oversight" as something 
different; supervise the work and bring any serious issues to the 
attention of the IAB.

>No, but it can provide a channel for conciliation before having to
>"go nuclear" by invoking penalties and cancellation clauses from the



P.S. Bonus points for anyone who can explain why the the IAB Chair 
added a comment in his message ( 
) about the exceptional path for exposing information to the community.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list