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

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

On 24-Jun-21 12:45, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 24/06/2021, at 10:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>> Declaring the RSAB to be the stream manager hurts my head.
>>
>> Mine too. It needs to be a person and I don't think this is
>> a job we should overload any of the RSWG/RSAB chairs with.
>> The stream manager job in this case should be very light
>> anyway: not many documents & very unlikely that those
>> documents will raise unexpected technical issues for the
>> RPC. As Joel says, content issues are handled by the
>> RSWG/RSAB process anyway.
>>
>> Declaring the RSEA to be the stream manager works for me.
> 
> Could you perhaps explain why and how the RSEA will in practice carry out that role given the lack of authority they have over the stream?  The only reason I’ve heard so far is that neither the RSAB nor the RSWG or their chairs are suitable, which doesn’t explain why the RSEA is suitable.

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?

** It would be rather curious for someone inside the RFC Series tent to act as the RFC Series' interface with the RFC Series...

    Brian

> 
> Jay
> 
>>
>> Regards
>>   Brian C
>>
>> On 23-Jun-21 21:06, Joel Halpern Direct wrote:
>>> I am wondering if we are mixing the concept of stream manager with
>>> stream content owner.  The IESG is responsible for the content of the
>>> IETF stream.  The IETF Chair or their delegate is the IETF stream
>>> manager.  That role is making sure that there are no issues with 
the
>>> practical publication of the stream, including interacting with the RPC.
>>>
>>> Declaring the RSAB to be the stream manager hurts my head.  That 
is not
>>
>>> a person.  And will create confusion about the role of the RSAB. 
 WHile
>>
>>> the obvious analogy is to declare that the RSAB chair is the stream
>>> manager for this new stream, it seems to me that creates confusion since
>>> that person is (unless they are the RSE/A) the stream head for some
>>> other stream.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> PS: One answer may be that there is no stream manager for this stream?
>>> Because the role is redundant with the defined roles for the RSAB?
>>>
>>> On 6/23/2021 4:56 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>> If you're suggesting that the RSAB itself hold the stream, that's
>>>> certainly an alternative.  However, the RSAB should probably be 
bound by
>>>> policies of This document in the use of the stream.  This would 
be
>>>> similar in nature to how the IAB stream is operated.
>>>>
>>>> On 23.06.21 10:49, Jay Daley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/06/2021, at 8:18 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my perspective, you are correct that it is a bit of a
>>>>>> misalignment.  But...   A committee is not a stream 
manager.  And
>>>>>> giving any of the members of the RSAB a second stream confuses the
>>>>>> streams identity.
>>>>> It’s not a “content” stream though - it’s a “meta” stream that all the
>>>>> other streams have a strong stake in, which gives it a distinct identity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>   Thus, we bend / stretch the RSEA role a bit?
>>>>> But what does that mean in practice given that all the decisions about
>>>>> this stream are made by the RSWG? If I may introduce a useful English
>>
>>>>> expression into IETF discourse, it’s as much use to the RSEA as a
>>>>> chocolate teapot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay
>>>>>
>>>>> (sent from my phone)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>