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

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 10/24/19 1:48 PM, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> I’ve posted a -00 draft for the RSEME BoF (Tuesday, 19 November @
> 08:45-09:30 Singapore Time). This is a proposal based on the information
> I heard during the virtual meetings (and many thanks, again, to those
> who participated). Discussion is welcome; if there is enough
> constructive input that seems to have general agreement, I’ll be happy
> to try and get in an -01 before the Nov 4 cut-off for I-Ds.

Thanks for getting this out so quickly, and for what
looks like a comprehensive and well-structured summary
of the discussion so far.

I have to admit that it never occurred to me to do this
as an IAB program and I find it a really appealing idea,
with the caveat that some new processes are going to have
to be defined.  For example, the proposal doesn't mention
how the program would reach decisions (by rough consensus,
I assume?) or how it would be handled if things went badly
(accountability, chair/editor replacement if necessary, etc.).
As things currently stand, IAB programs are chaired by
IAB members, but that's not defined anywhere so it's
an open question AFAIC.  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.

I also think this is an opportunity to try some innovation
around longer-term efforts, so I'd be curious to hear additional
proposals.

Melinda


-- 
Melinda Shore
[e-mail]

Software longa, hardware brevis

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest