Re: [rfc-i] Comments on draft-flanagan-rseme-01

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 04-Nov-19 12:37, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Somebody has to appoint the chairs.  Somebody has to serve as an appeals 
> / support / resolution chain for the discussion.  Somebody has to take 
> responsibility for confirming when an agreement is reached, and then 
> finding a way for the community to act on that agreement.*
> 
> We have relatively few structures for doing this.  Saying that the 
> chairs and structure shall appear from thin air seems rather unlikely.
> 
> As I stated on the call I was on, I am not happy with this path.  I am 
> merely less unhappy with it than I am with any other path I have heard 
> suggested or have imagined.

Indeed. So in answer to a question from SM:

>> Does neutrality mean not expressing any opinion in public about this matter?

I would expect individual IAB members to have, and express, opinions.
But I think that when such a process is launched, the IAB as a committee
should undertake to *not* express an opinion during the process of
discussion and consensus formation.

Related to that, and again in answer to SM:

>> Would shared 
>> affiliation be considered as a conflict of interest?

I don't really think so. Many of us have multiple affiliations.
But when the topic is finding community consensus on the way
forward for the RFC series, we need all viewpoints and all
affiliations represented. Certainly I'd expect people to disclose
their affiliations.

> Some of the discussion of the proposal has been helpful.  But wishes for 
> magical better answers do not help anyone.

Agreed.
   Brian

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> *Yes, I am being optimistic.  The alternative is to watch the whole 
> structure collapse.  I prefer to try to improve it.
> 
> On 11/3/2019 6:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> The question behind that, which I hope will be discussed frankly, is
>>> whether the community trusts the IAB to act as the host for this with
>>> the necessary neutrality and open-mindedness.
>>
>> given how we got to the current situation, that is definitely in
>> question.
>>
>>> If not the IAB, what other host would you suggest?
>>
>> it may not be clear to all that it needs a host.
>>
>> randy
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest