[rfc-i] [IAB] Comments on RSE models

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Fri Jan 14 14:53:39 PST 2011

>>> 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.
>> Paul,
>> You have to explain what you mean with 'acting after the discussion'.
>> Do you mean who is responsible for the 'act of determining the
>> consensus'?
> Yes. By "after the discussion", I meant "after the community has discussed the big question that was brought to it".
>> Because after the consensus is called policy needs to be implemented
>> and that is the responsibility of the RSE, agreed?
> For some big questions that are answered, yes, but some of them will be implemented by the Production Center and/or the Publisher. For example, if the new community consensus is that in addition to the canonical text format, the RFC Editor web site must also have a non-canonical HTML version, it is not the RSE who implements this change: instead, the RSE verifies that the Publisher does so. (I think that is true in both Glenn's current model and my proposal, but Glenn can speak to his.) The RSE might have to implement changes to the web site to point to the new files, of course.

Paul, I am loosing you. When I mean 'X implements' I do not mean that X does the hands-on work herself but that she is the responsible person for making sure the work happens and is properly budgeted and prioritized. 

In your model, who is is responsible for implementation in that meaning?

I am asking these questions because I have difficulties spotting the 10 differences between your and Glenn's model.



Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20110114/f580c531/attachment.p7s>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list