Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check: Issue 22 – new stream for RFC Editor

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Exactly.

Don't interpret this as an attack on the IAB. The idea is to *simplify*
the overall structure and incidentally take all these concerns away from
the IAB for ever, so that the IAB has more time to attend to the A in
its name. (Whether the IAB even needs a liaison member from the RFC Editor
in the new structure is for the IAB to think about.)

    Brian
On 26-Jun-21 05:37, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 6/25/2021 1:19 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> If the IAB retains the right to rewrite or refuse the documents from 
>> this process, then I do not see what we have accomplished with this 
>> entire circus ???
> 
> And to continue that thought, the IAB may change what it does with the 
> IAB stream at any time for any reason. Effectively a veto.
> 
> -1 - do not run publications of this type through the IAB process.
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 6/25/2021 1:16 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/24/2021 1:46 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-6-24, at 7:57, Brian E Carpenter 
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> As somebody else said, this stream by its very nature is going to 
>>>>> be special and even self-referential. The notion we have of a 
>>>>> stream being a client of the RFC Series just doesn't apply, so the 
>>>>> normal notion of a stream manager doesn't apply**. But surely we 
>>>>> need someone to act as progress chaser and nit resolver when a 
>>>>> document has left the RSAB and is inside the RPC? And who will that 
>>>>> be if it's not the RSEA?
>>>> I still remain unconvinced that we even need a new stream. I may be 
>>>> in the rough, but I would be OK with using the IAB stream and 
>>>> leaving the IAB a role here.
>>>
>>> +1. That seems a much simpler solution than creating yet another 
>>> rarely used structure.
>>>
>>> -- Christian Huitema
>>>
>>
>