[rfc-i] Comments on RSE models

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Jan 13 10:09:55 PST 2011

On 1/13/11 9:53 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> But if the RSE decides that this raises the larger question:  is it time to
> treat IDs as archival, since they functionally are archival within most meanings
> of the term?  In Paul's model, that question gets chewed over by the
> oversight committee and they decide whether to raise the question to the
> community.   In Glenn's model, the RSE brings it to the community directly
> and, for some value of the manages, manages the community toward consensus.

To be more precise, in Paul's model the committee can decide to bring 
the question to the community themselves, or they can tell the RSE to do 
it for them. The committee is still responsible for the final decision 
(and is thus responsible for listening to the community's discussion), 
but they don't have to be the facilitator of the discussion: they can 
use their RSE to do that.

Thus, the parts of the two models visible to the community are probably 
nearly identical; the difference is who is responsible for acting after 
the discussion.

(As an aside, what is being described here has a fairly direct parallel 
in what the IAB has asked the TRSE to do with respect to moving the RFC 
Series model forwards. The IAB could facilitate the discussion 
themselves, or they can ask the TRSE to do it for them.)

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list