RFC Editor Model discussions
IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org> Fri, 30 August 2019 16:41 UTC
Return-Path: <iab-chair@iab.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C86120B43 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EbcOhEAag8_3; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from thornhill.mtv.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1000:1103:159a:507b:3bf5:74e0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EF9D120924; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Reply-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>
Subject: RFC Editor Model discussions
Message-ID: <03a8746b-27dc-bcbe-4131-ef5012966dc3@iab.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:41:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0ED9C3C9771E74C8CCEB4024"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M2d85XpOOR4tm78yGyh205iJWJc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:41:11 -0000
Dear Colleagues, As you will have seen from the RSOC's message to the community, the RSOC is seeking input on an SOW for a temporary RFC Project Manager focused on the tactical aspects of the RSE position, in order to allow for a community process considering changes to the RFC Editor Model to complete. If the community supports moving forward with that approach, a key question becomes how to ensure that the evolution process completes successfully and in a timely fashion. There are several choices of how to proceed, each of which has differences in who convenes the process, who manages it, and who calls consensus. Among the choices would be an open membership IAB program, an IETF GEN area working group, or a group convened from within the RFC Editor system itself (e.g. by the stream managers). In order to ensure that we have feedback on the structure of the community process, Heather will convene three interim meetings prior to IETF 106, each intended to allow those from different time zones to participate. The tentative plan is for a September 13th meeting to be targeted at Americas-friendly time zones, for a September 30th meeting to be targeted at European and African time zones, and for a meeting over the October 17th/October 18th date to be targeted at Pacific and Asian time zones. Exact times and logistical details will be provided as soon as possible. After these initial meetings, there will be a meeting held at IETF 106 to discuss a proposal for the structure of the community process. That meeting will again be convened by Heather, possibly with a co-chair. List confirmation or further discussion of any tentative conclusions will take place on the rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>mailing list. These steps to establish community consensus for a specific process are somewhat unusual, and the IAB recognizes that adding them may slow the overall process. We believe, however, that they are needed given the community concerns raised to date. We also hope that clear community consensus for the process used will arise, and that this will help ensure that the eventual results of the process are acceptable to the community as a whole. regards, Ted Hardie for the IAB
- RFC Editor Model discussions IAB Chair