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

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 9:11 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

FWIW, not all IAB programs are chaired by IAB members. I point to the RSOC as the current example of that. As to the openness of IAB programs, I don’t think there’s anything that says they can’t be; I did not see any requirements about that one way or the other on https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/ or in RFC 2850. 

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

Suggestions are more than welcome!

-Heather

> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> -- 
> Melinda Shore
> melinda.shore@nomountain.net
> 
> Software longa, hardware brevis
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

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