Re: [rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-rseme-00.txt

Hey Melinda,

You make some good points:

> For example, the proposal doesn't mention
> how the program would reach decisions (by rough consensus,
> I assume?)

I would hope that a program can self-organise (like NomCom, for example). 
But the fact of that self-organisation could usefully be written down.

> how it would be handled if things went badly
> (accountability, chair/editor replacement if necessary, etc.).

That is a biggy! And even how you would measure "going badly".
I think we normally allow an IAB program to be appointed by and removed by the IAB (in the knowledge that the IAB can be appointed/removed by the community), and that together with reporting from the program to the IAB should be enough.

> As things currently stand, IAB programs are chaired by
> IAB members, but that's not defined anywhere so it's
> an open question AFAIC. 

Yes. I am pretty sure that some programs have been chaired by non-IAB people in the past. 
That actually sounds like a good use of resources because (presumably) the IAB are already doing stuff.
Being present should be enough without needing to chair as well.

> Similarly, to my knowledge we've
> never had a completely open IAB program, either, as there's
> been an expectation that it would be a small, focused (fsvo)
> group with domain expertise.  So, I think some process
> questions would need to be settled in advance to protect
> the group against process-based DoS attacks (not that that
> would ever happen at the IETF), etc.

Very agree.
That has been handled in the past by asking for volunteers at formation, and somewhat controlling the numbers.
I would be concerned if we got into a strict "IAB appoints" situation because we want to avoid the IAB only appointing (by accident or design) people with a particular outlook.

Best,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest