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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 16:39:08 PST 2010

Hi Paul,

On 2010-11-27 09:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 2:46 PM +1300 11/26/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 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.
> At 8:46 AM +1300 11/27/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2010-11-27 08:38, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> 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.
> 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 ask because it seems like the new REOC seems to encompass three disparate ideas:
> Interface between the community and the RSE:
>>   o  support the RSE in the process of community consultation,
>>   o  support the RSE in developing new or modified policy proposals on
>>      an "advise and consent" model,
>>   o  support the RSE in presenting general policy proposals for
>>      approval by the IAB,
>>   o  receive and review regular progress reports from the RSE,
>>   o  support the RSE in regular reporting to the community,
> Help the IAB with choosing and retaining the RSE:
>>   o  promptly bring any serious issues with the Series to the IAB's
>>      attention,
>>   o  when required, act as the hiring committee for the RSE, in
>>      cooperation with the iAB and in liaison with IASA.
> Help the IASA with contracting the RPC and Publisher:
>>   o  when required, participate with the IASA in the RFP and
>>      contracting process for components of the RFC Editor function
> The first part seems to be the current RSAG, the second seems to be the up/down decisions you described in your earlier message, and the third part adds another group to deciding the RPC and Publisher contracting.

Good analysis, and I don't like the first part to be done
by an appointed committee rather than one selected by some
sort of community process. We can certainly debate that, but
that was my main reason for this suggestion.

> A different model might be to leave the current RSAG as-is, and to add a new REOC to help the IAB with the up/down decisions. (Given the vagueness of the current draft on who gets what say in contracting the RPC and Publisher, I'm not sure whether or not to add the REOC.)

As I said to Andrew, an advisory committee appointed by the RSE is the RSE's
business, but it can't claim any authority or community mandate.

An advisory committee appointed by the IAB, which is what we nominally
have today, makes little sense to me.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list