[rfc-i] On two committees (was: new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available)

Andrew Sullivan ajs at shinkuro.com
Fri Nov 26 12:53:28 PST 2010

I'll send other comments under another thread, but this thread seems
like a good place to talk about the number of committees.

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:12:52PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> OK, let me try again. Why did you pick this path instead of just
> changing the RSAG to have the responsibilities you outline and
> changing the way they are chosen? What is the advantage of having
> the document specify "here's a new committee, and the old
> committee's name is reused for a new purpose with a new way of being
> chosen"?

I think I agree with Paul.  In any case, I don't get the need for this
new committee along with the possibly-but-maybe-not RSAG.

It sort of looks to me like the REOC is a somewhat expanded version of
the function suggested for the RSAG in RFC 5620, except that members'
terms are shorter and with a less clear statement that they're
selected by and, if necessary, removed by the IAB.

As I did during the last round, I'm feeling very much the lack of any
reasoning in the document for why particular suggestions are made.
What problem is the REOC trying to solve, and why is it distinct from
the RSAG?  I don't understand the need for it, and it looks to me like
it creates yet another opportunity for community participants' time to
be sunk into overhead activities.  I guess I sort of think that the
RSAG is supposed to be the RSE's own advisors, but I don't understand
why it's important to have an official list of who's whispering in the
RSE's ear: if there's anything actually nefarious going on, then it
will be secret anyway, and otherwise it's just decoration.

So, I don't see why we need to have yet more officially-empanelled
committees here.  My impression is that the IETF community is busily
turning itself into a heavyweight bureaucracy, and anything that tends
in that direction makes me nervous.  Having two different committees
at this level sticks out to me as such bureacratic development.  I
don't feel terribly strongly about it, but in the absence of arguments
for it, I'd say that one of them could be eliminated.


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list