[rfc-i] On two committees

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 18:56:54 PST 2010

On 2010-12-01 09:31, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 09:18:19AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> from the details of oversight of the Secretariat etc.). And of course it's
>> Management 101 that you do that by delegating the routine oversight to
>> another committee.
>> I have a preference for that other committee to be selected by some sort of
>> community process rather than appointed by the IAB; that seems to be
>> the Internet way.
> It seems to me that it's also management 101 that the person who does
> the delegating picks the delegates. 

In a strictly hierarchical system, yes. But the Internet technical community
isn't quite like that.

> If the idea is to have a committee that's appointed by the NomCom,

Actually my suggestion was that mainly it's appointed by the RFC streams,
with just one NomCom appointee.

> then I don't think it's reasonable to have the formal responsibility
> for the RSE with the IAB: this is yet another opportunity for
> responsibility without authority.

You're right, but we do have to live with diffuse responsibility
around here. I think what I proposed is OK, since it leaves a power
of veto over big decisions with the IAB.

> But I have no trouble with the IAB being able to select a committee to
> which it delegates the regular oversight of the RSE (and I thought
> that's what was being proposed).

I could live with that too. I just don't think it's in anyone's interests
to have the IAB performing the regular oversight itself.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list