Re: [rfc-i] Proposed Program Description for RFC Editor evolution program

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the review.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 5:02 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to say that I have no major comments on this proposal. It seems to
> follow the draft-flanagan-rseme model.
>
> I would prefer it if the description stated that the chairs must be from
> outside the IAB and the IESG.
>
>
The current plan is to have an open call for volunteers to serve as chairs
for this program, then have community feedback for those volunteers, along
the lines that the IAB uses for appointments.  The IAB does not plan to
have any sitting member act as a chair.

> I note that there isn't any text about the scope. That may be wise at the
> level of a program description, but I'd expect the chairs to start by
> stating an intended scope (and the scope definition in
> draft-flanagan-rseme-03 seems like a good place to start).
>
>
I agree that this is one of the first task of the chairs, and I expect it
to be part of the discussion with volunteers.

best regards,

Ted Hardie

> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 20-Dec-19 06:19, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > The IAB is seeking feedback on the proposed program description below.
> While we would prefer public discussion on this list, comments may also be
> sent to iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org>.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Ted Hardie
> > for the IAB
> >
> > Evolving the RFC Editor Model
> >
> >
> >       Purpose
> >
> > This program is intended to foster discussion and consensus on potential
> changes to the RFC Editor model.  Discussion of changes to how the RFC
> Editor function is managed, staffed, and overseen are all within scope.
> After the group has come to rough consensus, it will document its output in
> one or more RFCs.
> >
> >
> >       Program Description
> >
> >
> > During the period between IETF 105 and IETF 106, the RFC Series Editor
> convened a number of meetings to assess how best to conduct a community
> discussion and consensus process for the evolution of the RFC Editor
> model.  During that process, an IAB program was identified as the most
> appropriate vehicle for the discussion, provided it allowed for open
> participation and used a rough consensus model for decision making. The
> working methods below are intended to capture the output of those meetings.
> >
> >
> > This program has no predetermined constraints on the decisions of the
> group.  Updates to or retention of the oversight model, management, and the
> roles involved in the RFC Editor function are all within scope.  Because
> the focus of the discussions leading up to the creation of the program were
> on the RFC Series Editor role, there is a presumption that the group’s
> discussion will start with that.
> >
> >
> >       Working Methods
> >
> >
> > The program is modeled on an IETF working group and uses its mailing
> list to develop and validate consensus among the participants.
> Participants must adhere to the IETF participation policies set out in the
> Note Well [Note Well <https://ietf.org/about/note-well/>].   Decisions
> are made using rough consensus as determined by the chairs.
> >
> >
> > One or more design teams may be set up during the course of the program,
> but their output must be considered and validated according to the usual
> consensus process.  Design team output has no special standing.
> >
> >
> > Participants may appeal consensus calls to the IAB[RFC7282].
> >
> >
> > In addition to chairs,  the program will have an IAB program lead.  That
> lead will act as a liaison between the chairs and the IAB for logistical
> and other formal matters. All members of the IAB, including the liaison,
> may also participate in the group as ordinary members.
> >
> >
> >       Members
> >
> >
> > This program is open to participation by anyone.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >
>
>