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

> On Oct 25, 2019, at 3:36 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hey Melinda,
> 
> You make some good points:
> 
>> For example, the proposal doesn't mention
>> how the program would reach decisions (by rough consensus,
>> I assume?)
> 
> I would hope that a program can self-organise (like NomCom, for example). 
> But the fact of that self-organisation could usefully be written down.

I do like the idea of suggesting they model their activities and behavior along the lines of an IETF working group, including validating consensus on the list, sticking tot he standards of behavior in the IETF Note Well, and following the guidance in RFC 7282, "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF”. I expect people would naturally trend that way, whether it’s written down or not. 

> 
>> how it would be handled if things went badly
>> (accountability, chair/editor replacement if necessary, etc.).
> 
> That is a biggy! And even how you would measure "going badly".
> I think we normally allow an IAB program to be appointed by and removed by the IAB (in the knowledge that the IAB can be appointed/removed by the community), and that together with reporting from the program to the IAB should be enough.

Well, in my mind, “going badly” means “unable to reach consensus and descending into unprofessional behavior”.

> 
>> As things currently stand, IAB programs are chaired by
>> IAB members, but that's not defined anywhere so it's
>> an open question AFAIC. 
> 
> Yes. I am pretty sure that some programs have been chaired by non-IAB people in the past. 
> That actually sounds like a good use of resources because (presumably) the IAB are already doing stuff.
> Being present should be enough without needing to chair as well.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Very agree.
> That has been handled in the past by asking for volunteers at formation, and somewhat controlling the numbers.
> I would be concerned if we got into a strict "IAB appoints" situation because we want to avoid the IAB only appointing (by accident or design) people with a particular outlook.

Any reason that the IAB can’t call for volunteers, and then ask for input from the community on the candidates? That’s what they did for the RSOC, so there is precedent.

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