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

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

> 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.

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]> 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)
>>>
>>
>