[rfc-i] REOC membership

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at gmail.com
Fri Jan 21 13:10:59 PST 2011

On Jan 21, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

> Glenn:
>>>> - The IAB should avoid appointing:
>>>> 	- current stream approver committee members, to allow focus and sufficient time to satisfy the
>>>> 		requirements of REOC membership, and
>>> I don't see the need for this rule.  Your text says that it because they won't have enough time.  Anyone who is willing do the job will need to commit the time.
>> The REOC is not merely advisory; it's oversight of the Editor entails real exercise of authority. 
>> REOC decisions well might come into conflict with demands by a stream. The recommendation 
>> above is therefore necessary to avoid conflicts of interest. It would not be good for a large 
>> fraction of the REOC to frequently recuse themselves because they're on both sides of a 
>> controversy.  This point probably needs to be a hard rule, whereas most of the other points 
>> here are guidelines.
>> Regarding time: I was taking into account reports that many I* leaders are massively 
>> overworked and that many others have the similar knowledge of broad requirements through 
>> prior experience. I was thinking of enlarging the base of people involved, but really didn't make 
>> a strong case for it with my terse language.  I hear that the IETF is putting too much load on 
>> too few people, and that this is a reason it is so difficult to find candidates for some positions.
>>> I also think there is value in having a few people involved in the streams be on the oversight committee.  Even as far as having someone from every stream.
>> As long as 'involved' doesn't conflict with the point above.  Note that the Overview doesn't say 
>> much about voting structure, other than the possibility of there being a non-voting IASA liaison.  
>> In time, more distinctions between liaison and regular members might be made, and voting and 
>> non-voting status might be used
>>>> 	- standing members of the various other I* entities. Doing so is unnecessary and could make it
>>>> 		more difficult for members to focus on Editor issues.
>>> Likewise, I don't see the need for this rule.  Please explain.
>> See above.
> Since the IAB is the appeal body for REOC decisions, there is already a built-in way to resolve severe conflict.  Therefore, I do not think we should go out of our way to exclude anyone.  We have already had a situation where IAOC members have held other I* seats.  No conflict surfaced.  Had there been an appeal of anIAOC decision to the other body, that dual-hatted person would have to recuse.  Not a big deal.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list