Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Model discussions

I think that the stream managers needs to be the core team for this effort.  That allows each of the sources of RFCs to have a voice.  In addition, an at-large member could be chosen to act as secretary.

Russ

> On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:41 PM, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org> wrote:
> 
> 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-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest