[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Fri Jul 1 08:23:46 PDT 2011

>I would like to see edits made clarifying that the IAB is NOT 
>expected to act as a "rubber stamp" with respect to RFC matters,
>but instead the IAB is expected to actually exercise oversight.  

People are not software, and you cannot force people to do a good job
by microspecifying what they should do in every possible imaginable
situation.  You get good results by finding sensible people, giving
them a clear description of what they're supposed to do (rather than
how they're supposed to do it), and let them do it.  If they do a
lousy job, you can try to educate them and in the worst case you can
replace them, but you can't fix it by adding ever more ad-hoc rules.

If I were reading language like that, I'd take it as a message to the
IAB that they are too dim to understand how to delegate authority, to
potential volunteers to the RSOC not to bother, since the IAB will
second guess everything they do, and to a candidate for RSE that he or
she will be nitpicked at multiple levels for every action or decision.

I realize that you have been on the IAB and I have not, but please,
let's not go there.  But I hear the nomcom is looking for volunteers.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list