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

Ted Hardie ted.ietf at gmail.com
Tue Nov 23 13:53:19 PST 2010

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
So, for example, Ted's support
> for the narrow scope includes justification such as "that role takes policy
> decisions or desiderata from the community and provides concrete methods for
> how to achieve them."  This makes all strategic decision making entirely
> amorphous and, therefore, unlikely.

Not surprisingly, I disagree.  The model I've presented presumes that most of
the substantive requirements come from the streams and the role of the
Series Editor is to coordinate those requirements such that the results meet
the needs of *all* streams, rather than any single stream.  If the IRTF stream
surfaced a requirement that required the ability to embed set-builder notation,
for example, I would expect the RSE to work with the IAB, Independent
and IETF streams to ensure that the result worked for them.  Ideally, the RSE
would embed that discussion in a larger discussion of mathematical notation,
rather than narrowly solving that one issue; he or she would also have to lead
away from the larger ratholes in using that one requirement to open every
format question that might appear.

That doesn't mean "nobody is in charge".  It means that the streams remain
in charge of their input and output, with the RSE managing both the core
requirements (continuity, availability, archival nature) and those that are
matters arising (format issues, etc.).  I don't expect that the RSE would drive
for the inclusion of new formats, notation, or methods unless they met
a requirement surfaced by a stream user.   If nobody asks us for Flash (tm)
support, in other words, I don't think the RSE needs to hold a colloquium
on how to get there.

While I have not yet written up my comments on the doc, one of the issues
I have touches very strongly on this--that the introduced Oversight Committee
explicitly excludes anyone serving on the approving bodies for one of the
stream.  So no one on the IAB, IESG, or IRSG can serve.  That seems the
wrong direction to go, in my opinion.

Speaking only for myself,


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list