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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 11:46:36 PST 2010


On 2010-11-27 08:38, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 2:46 PM +1300 11/26/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi Olaf,
>> On 2010-11-24 09:18, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> ...
>>> I would also be interested why the Oversight Committee got introduced between the plenary presentation and the current document. I haven't seen a lot of public discussion that argued for such major chance.
>> At the risk of adding to confusion, let me
>> a) Confess that this was my suggestion, in a short conversation
>> with Glenn on the Friday in Beijing. The reasoning was that it
>> seems to me that, in order for the IAB to perform its duties acording
>> to its charter (approve an organization and approve general policy),
>> there needs to be something bearing responsibility between
>> the RSE and these two high level up/down decisions by the IAB.
>> Clearly, the IAB shouldn't be involved in day to day oversight
>> and policy formation, and the RSE shouldn't be freewheeeling
>> between the hopefully rare occasions when the IAB has to take
>> one of those up/down decisions.
>> b) Show my original text on this suggestion. It isn't by any
>> means perfect, but this was my raw input:
>>>> 5.1. RFC Editor Oversight Committee (REOC)
>>>> This committee exercises routine oversight over the RFC Editor
>>>> and RFC Series.
>>>> 5.1.1. Duties
>>>> The REOC has the following duties:
>>>>  * Support the RSE in the process of community consultation.
>>>>  * Support the RSE in developing new or modified policy proposals on an
>>>>    "advise and consent" model.
>>>>  * Support the RSE in presenting general policy proposals for approval
>>>>    by the IAB.
>>>>  * Receive and review regular progress reports from the RSE.
>>>>    [Note: this is *not* the IAB's job.]
>>>>  * Support the RSE in regular reporting to the community.
>>>>  * Promptly bring any serious issues with the Series to the IAB's attention.
>>>>  * When required, participate with the IASA in the RFP and contracting
>>>>    process for components of the RFC Editor function.
>>>>    [Note: this is *not* the IAB's job.]
>>>>  * When required, act as the hiring committee for the RSE, in liaison
>>>>    with IASA.
>>>>    [Note: this is *not* the IAB's job.]
>>>> 5.1.2. Membership
>>>> The REOC shall have one voting member appointed by each major RFC stream
>>>> (IETF, IAB, IRTF, Independent) and one voting member appointed by
>>>> the IETF NomCom and confirmed by the IAB.
>>>> Terms will be two years renewable (with three one year terms initially, to
>>>> stagger the renewals).
>>>> The RSE shall be a non-voting member.
>>>> There may be a non-voting IASA liaison member.
>>>> The REOC shall elect its chair among the the voting members.
> Brian: why did you pick this path instead of just changing the RSAG to have the responsibilities you outline?

Because the RSAG is a collection of people appointed by fiat. I would
compare it to the Transition Team that preceded the IAOC.

For those who aren't aware, I was a member of that transition team
and am a member of the RSAG. But I prefer community processes to populate
standing committees.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list