Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

FWIW, I found this analysis very helpful.

   john


--On Monday, January 3, 2022 14:43 +0100 Mirja Kuehlewind
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Not sure I can add much to this discussion which has not been
> said before but as I hope this might help, here is my view. 
> 
> This is the text in draft:
> 
> "The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including
> members from the community, that will be responsible for
> making a recommendation to the IETF LLC for the RSCE role."
> 
> I think the important point of this text is that not the
> selection committee makes the final decision but the LLC Board
> which is a group of community selected volunteers. Yes,
> usually the LLC will likely follow the recommendation from the
> selection committee but they also have to provide proposer
> justifications to the LLC. The role of the search committee
> really is to support the LLC Board with additional expertise
> and it's the LLC Board that knows best which additional
> expertise is needed. As such I think I'm okay with what is
> written in the draft currently.
> 
> However, I would also like to note that th text says the LCC
> Board forms the selection committee and not the ED. While
> these are internals on how the LLC Board manages itself, I
> would assume that's rather a job for the LLC Board chair
> with approval of the whole (community-selected) board than the
> ED. This issue was discussed and confirmed (changing
> responsibility from the ED to the whole LLC board in GitHub
> issue #40).
> 
> If the ED would be the sole one to select the committee I
> would be more concerned because I think it's easy (and often
> happens naturally) to select people with a certain bias if
> selected by only one person. But that's not the process as
> specified to my understanding.
> 
> I guess we could add a few more words about who/which group of
> people should be considered to be on the committee but not
> sure that is really needed or very helpful. I raised issue
> #111 asking about the textual difference of the RSCE selection
> committee vs. the RPC selection committee. For we RPC
> selection committee we explicitly say that the ED is part of
> this committee and the stream approving bodies are consulted.
> It was confirmed to me that this difference was on purpose. 
> 
> I also hope that the LLC Board would anyway consult with the
> RSAB in such matters. So I'm have no concern with the
> additional text proposed by Eliot. However, I hope that the
> LLC Board would also consult about other (finical) topics that
> are relevant or the RFC series and the RPC with the RSAB. Not
> sure if we really need to say more about this explicitly.
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29. Dec 2021, at 20:50, Jay Daley <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> I agree, the current model does make the ED the sole arbiter
>> of who meets the criteria to be on the appointment committee
>> and I can see why you might have concerns that this could be
>> misused.  I have no objection to any checking mechanism for
>> this, such as your proposed check with the RSAB but please
>> note, that would likely delay the appointment of the RSCE by
>> ~3 months because this process cannot then start until the
>> RSAB is seated.  I also btw, have no objection to the
>> committee being chosen entirely separately from me.  The one
>> thing I would ask if we go that path is that we document, as
>> briefly as possible, the knowledge those people are expected
>> to have.
>> 
>> My plan, as previously noted, was to come to this list with a
>> proposed committee and get feedback that way, as I am obliged
>> to do by section 4.4 or RFC8711 (which is phrased much
>> stronger than an aspiration, but that's a conversation for
>> another time). Of course, as you have explained,  if this is
>> not specified in the process then there is a possibility that
>> another ED might not do that.
>> 
>> Even if we don't put any of those safeguards in place, I
>> will continue to find this appointment process
>> disproportionate given that the processes for appointing the
>> RPC, Secretariat, and Tools Team PM, all of which probably
>> have more impact than this new role, are nowhere near as
>> deeply specified.  
>> 
>> Jay
>> 
>> (PS. This is likely to be my last post until Jan 24th as I
>> start my summer vacation later today).
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jay Daley
>> IETF Executive Director 
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>>> On 30/12/2021, at 6:04 AM, John C Klensin
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --On Wednഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 esday, December 29,
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 2021 15:06 +1300 Jayഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  Daley
>> <exec-dirഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 [e-mail]>
wrotഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e:
>> 
>>> Brieflyഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 , this has become
onഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e or two orders of
mഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 agnitude more
>>> cഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 omplex than is requiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 red
for this role (rഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 emembering that the
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>>> role as writtenഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  is very
different fഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rom the previous
rolഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e).
>>> The overridഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ing priority for
comഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 mittee members shoulഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d be
that
>>> they ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 understand this new
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 role and will therefഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ore find
someone
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > who fits this roleഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
rather than the preഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 vious role.  I've
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> regularly pushed ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 back on
having ex-ofഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ficio appointments
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 o the
>>> selectionഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  committee because,
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 from what I've seen ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 so far,
the
>>> numഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ber of people who
prഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 operly understand thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 is new
role is
>>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 actually quite limitഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ed
in number. Pickinഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 g a random IAB/IESG
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>>> person who isn'ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t one of
those meansഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  the committee has
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 o
>>> work much harഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 der to bring them
toഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  speed. 
>> 
>> Jaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 y,
>> 
>> Setting ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 aside Stephen's
reacഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tion (and my similarഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
one), whatever
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nostalgia I may feelഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  for
the old way of ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 doing things and,
heഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nce,
>> the old RSEഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  role, had nothing
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 o do with my commentഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s.  I
think I
>> unഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 derstand the new rolഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e.
It is clear fromഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  the above that my
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> understanding is ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 almost
certainly difഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ferent from yours.
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 I got a
>> hint of ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 the differences
fromഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  your "de facto" notഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e,
but this note
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  from you makes the
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 difference much moreഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  clear.
>> 
>> Theഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  more important
commഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ent above is about
pഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 eople who "properly
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>> understand this ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 new
role".   While Iഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  agree that is
imporഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tant,
>> the above,ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  combined with your
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 proposed sole controഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 l of the
>> selectiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 on committee and
othഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 er aspects of the hiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ring
process,
>> woഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 uld appear to set yoഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 u
up as the sole arbഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 iter of "proper
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 understanding" as weഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ll as
of the entire ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hiring and
selectionഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> process.  I'd hഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ave a problem with
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hat sole arbiter rolഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e even
if
>> I was ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 confident that our
uഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nderstanding agreed.ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀   
>> 
>> I also nഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ote that I dud not
sഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ay anything about anഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
ex-officio
>> appoഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 intment to the
selecഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tion committee.  I
dഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 on't remember anyoneഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> else suggestingഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  that either.  I
thiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nk that makes "Pickiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ng a
>> random IAB/ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 IESG person..."
entiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rely a red herring.
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>> 
>> I think theഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  new role is going
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 o be much harder thaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 n the
old one
>> beഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 cause it requires, nഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ot
only bringing a hഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 igh level of
expertiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 se
>> to the table,ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  but of educating
anഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d persuading people ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 about
the
>> implicഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ations of opinions
fഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ormed on the basis oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 f that
expertise
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  rather than being aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ble to
simply actingഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  with authority
whenഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  they
>> think the ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 time is right for
thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 at.  We've removed tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 he
implicit
>> requഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 irement for
managemeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nt experience from
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 he role but not the
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>> requirements forഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  in-depth
expertise ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 and understanding.
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 Assuming
>> the perഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 sonalities are
rightഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 , that education andഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
persuasion role
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  will be easier for
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 someone with more exഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 perience
and knowledഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ge to
>> draw upon ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 than for a more
juniഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or person whose inpuഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t
might be
>> less ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 persuasive.  I'm
expഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ecting someone in thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 at
role who is
>> cഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 apable of offering rഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 eal
advice based on ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 their observations
oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 f
>> what is going ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 on, and doing so
proഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 actively, not just
sഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 omeone who
>> is goഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ing to sit around
waഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 iting for questions ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or
being presented
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> with things and nഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 odding
approvingly. ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> 
>> We haven'tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  clearly defined
thaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t role or the
requirഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ements in the
>> doഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 cument other than toഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
say "an expert in tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 echnical
publishing"ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> and "senior tecഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hnical publishing
prഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ofessional who will ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 apply
>> their deepഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  knowledge of
techniഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 cal publishing
proceഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 sses to the
>> RFC ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 Series" but even
thoഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 se are fairly high
rഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 equirements.  At
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  least as I read theഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 m,
they set a far hiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 gher bar than your
dഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
>> facto list.  Tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 he role would
changeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  significantly if thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
document
>> said ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 that the RSCE was
exഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 pected to speak onlyഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  when
spoken to and
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>> to answer questiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ons only
if they areഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  asked by, e.g.,
theഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  RSAB,
>> RSWG, or ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ED but I can't find
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 such text.  Based, aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 mong
other
>> thingഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s, on experience
doiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ng some consulting fഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or an
important
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 technical publisher ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 and
interacting withഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  them over
decisionsഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> similar to thosഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e the RFC Series
hasഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  faced and will faceഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  and
on
>> experienഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ce with the RFC
Seriഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 es that had more to ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 do
with strategy
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  than about roles anഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d how
they were defiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ned (RFC 4846,
4897,ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> etc., notwithstഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 anding) and
participഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ation in the last
seഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 arch
>> process (reഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 levant not because
Iഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  think the roles areഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  the
same but
>> beഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 cause those
qualificഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ations for expertiseഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
and deep knowledge
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>> are a subset of ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 the
criteria the lasഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t time around), I
thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ink the
>> positionഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  is going to be
veryഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  hard to fill.  Baseഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d on
that same
>> eഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 xperience and
perspeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ctive I think that, ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 if
a selection is maഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 de
>> on the basis ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 of nothing more
thanഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  your de facto criteഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ria
and
>> ability ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 to work well with
yoഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 u, we are not going ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 to end
up with
>> tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 he person in that roഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 le
that many (at leaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 st) of us believe
thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
>> phrases quotedഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  above require.
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> Speaking only fഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or myself, if we
areഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  not going to put soഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 meone
in
>> that poഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 sition who has
enougഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 h experience and
perഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 spective to exert
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > real influence --nഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ot just
answer technഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ical publication
queഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 stions
>> that I'm ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 confident the RPC
coഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 uld handle, at leastഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  if
they are
>> notഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  micromanaged (but
mഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ight or might not waഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nt to),
we should
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > reduce the complexഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ity of
the new modelഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  by just getting
ridഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  of
>> the RSCE posഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ition. 
>> 
>> Nowഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 , I don't know what
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 you are picturing anഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d it is
probably timഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
>> that you be muഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ch more explicit
aboഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ut it.   But, unlessഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  you
can
>> explainഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  your "proper"
underഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 standing of the roleഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
--not just
>> idenഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tify what you call dഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
facto requirementsഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  and then
>> hand-wഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ave-- and there is
cഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 onsensus (at least rഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ough)
about that,
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > I think we have thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ree
choices (the thiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rd of which I hope
nഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 o one
>> likes):
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > 
>> (1) We reviewഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  our collective
expeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ctations of the posiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tion
and
>> write eഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nough of a
descriptiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 on and set of
qualifഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ications into the
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > document to providഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e much
of the contenഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t of a job posting
oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 r RFP
>> without leഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 aving you or your
suഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ccessors as sole arbഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 iters
of what
>> thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e position is about.ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> 
>> (2) We proഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 vide some
(mandatoryഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ) mechanism for
inpuഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t into, or
>> revieഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 w of, the selection
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 committee membershipഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  to make
sure that
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> diverse perspectiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ves are
represented ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 by competent people
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 who are
>> willing ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 to work together.
Eഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 liot sees some issueഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s with
my
>> versioഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 n and I see some
issഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ues with his but I dഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 on't
see much
>> poഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 int in further
discuഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ssion of those
diffeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rences unless we canഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> get the selectiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 on process away
fromഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  the idea of you (wiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 th or
>> without diഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 scussion within the
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 LLC) being sole arbiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ter
(subject
>> onlഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 y to your
interpretaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tion of the few
wordഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s in the document) oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 f
>> what the positഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ion is about and
whaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t sort of qualificatഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ions
are
>> needed ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 in someone who is
seഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 lected.
>> 
>> Seeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  "obnoxious
postscriഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 pt" below for (3).
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> 
>>> I fully undഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 erstand the depth
ofഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  trauma some felt abഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 out the
>>> previouഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s role and that the
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 scars are still fresഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 h, but
this is
>>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 a very different rolഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
and we don't need ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 to overthink it. 
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > 
>> Whether I thiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nk you understand
thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 at or have the experഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ience
to
>> make thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e judgment is
probabഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ly irrelevant as is
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 your claim on the
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > subject.  It is a ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 very
different role.ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀   Maybe I haven't
beഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 en
>> watching closഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ely enough but, at
lഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 east in the last fewഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  months,
>> I've seഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 en no signs of
anyonഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e who does not
underഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 stand that and
>> tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hink it is very
diffഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 erent.   And that isഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
what I've said
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 multiple times: anotഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 her
thing that made ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 the old role
possiblഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e to
>> fill by relഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ying on tradition
isഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  that the tradition ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 and
>> precedents wഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ere there and clear
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 to those most involvഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ed,
>> something thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 at is not the case
fഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or this new and veryഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
different
>> role.ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀   
>> 
>> To use aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 n example so
deliberഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ately exaggerated
thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 at I hope no one
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  will think it is a
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 proposal or serious
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 suggestion, one way ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 to
>> avoid trying ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 to carefully define
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 it would be to appoiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nt Donald
>> Duck tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 o the role for a
modഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 erately short term, ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 watch
the ways in
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > which his performaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nce is
or is not sucഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 cessful, and then
reഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 vise
>> our expectaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tions and then
eitheഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 r eliminate the
posiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tion (because
>> hiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s failures didn't maഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ke
any difference) oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 r write a job
>> deഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 scription based on wഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hat
we had learned bഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 y the end of that
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > period.  While I dഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 on't
think anyone yoഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 u would be likely
toഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> recruit and hirഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e (with or without
aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  selection committeeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  you
>> control) woഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 uld perform nearly
aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s badly as I would eഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 xpect
from
>> said ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 duck, appointing
somഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 eone unqualified (hoഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 wever
accidentally)
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>> and then learninഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 g from
the experiencഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e is not an
experimeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nt I
>> would choosഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e to perform if we
cഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 an avoid it.
>> 
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > best,
>>  john
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > 
>> Obnoxious posഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tscript:
>> 
>> Thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ere is another way oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 f
looking at this, oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ne I mentioned some
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>> time ago in the ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 context
of an "ultimഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ate authority"
discuഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ssion
>> and that, ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 IIR, no one found
heഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 lpful.  Let me try aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 gain,
both to
>> maഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ke a strawman
counteഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rproposal and to putഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
my suggestion in a
´€à¨€ã¸€ã¸€ã¸€â€€>> different light.ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀   The
note quoted abഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ove reinforces the
rഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 elevance
>> of mentഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ioning it.  As this
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 system has evolved aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nd in
the last
>> aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nalysis, the LLC is ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 in
charge of almost ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 everything.  They
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > control the budgetഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  for
anything that iഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nvolves either work
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or
>> money.  They ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 contract for,
evaluaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 te, manage, and
contഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rol the
>> RPC.  Whഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ile I would not
expeഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ct it to ever happenഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ,
they could
>> eveഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 n deny publication fഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or
a particular docuഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ment, approved by
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > some stream, by
foഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rbidding the RPC to ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 invest
any resourcesഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  in
>> it.  If the ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 RSWG and RSAB
proposഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e a policy change,
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hey can say
>> "tooഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  expensive", "no
budഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 get", or "not somethഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ing
we are willing
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> to manage" and thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ere is
no appeal.  Tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hey control the
RSCEഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> selection, hiriഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ng, and evaluation
pഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rocesses and, if it ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 suits
>> their needഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s, convenience, or
mഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 anagement style, couഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ld
easily (and
>> pഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 erhaps inadvertentlyഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 )
reduce that positiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 on to something
veryഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> low-level with ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 no influence on
anytഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hing except to advisഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
them
>> when theyഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  decide they want
adഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 vice.  For those reaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 sons,
if there
>> iഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s a difference of
opഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 inion about what somഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
provision of the
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> "Model" document ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or other
community-wഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ritten
specificationഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 s mean
>> (not limiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ted to the
understanഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ding of the RSCE
rolഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e) and the
>> commuഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nity does not
persuaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 de them to change
thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 eir view, their
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 opinion will ultimatഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ely
prevail.  While ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 they engage in
>> cഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 onsultations and othഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 er
ways to measure cഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ommunity opinions
anഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d
>> their own perfഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ormance, they
ultimaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tely make the final
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 decisions
>> and arഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e ultimately
accountഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 able to no one otherഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
than themselves
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  (with the possible
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 exception of the ISOഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 C Board
and the onlyഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> option there, iഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 f it exists at all,
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 would be very drastiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 c).
>> 
>> We are,ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  of course,
protecteഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d from a grim
versioഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 n of that picture
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > by the moral and eഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 thical
obligations tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hat the LLC Board
anഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d
>> Staff, especiaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 lly the Executive
Diഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rector, feel to the
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 community
>> and coഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 mmunity consensus
buഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t those obligations ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 are,
to use ekr's
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > term, aspirationalഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 , not
anything that ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 is legally binding
oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 r
>> enforceable.
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> 
>> Given that dഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 escription, which I
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 believe summarizes tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 he actual
>> realitഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 y, perhaps what we
sഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hould do with this Pഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rogram
is to
>> decഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 lare success, thank
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 Peter and the Co-chaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 irs for
their
>> efഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 forts, drop this faiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rly
complicated "Modഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 el" document
>> (inഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 cluding the RSWG andഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
RSAB ideas), and reഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 place it with an
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  extremely short oneഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  that
reaffirms the ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 Streams, their
>> rഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 elationships, and thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 eir
independence of ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 each other in terms
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 of
>> what is to beഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  published.  It
woulഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d then say that the
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 policies of
>> the ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 RFC Series and
produഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ction of documents aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 re
ultimately
>> adഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ministrative and
finഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ancial matters to beഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
managed, contractedഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> or hired for asഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  needed, and
generalഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ly decided upon, by
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 the LLC,
>> encouraഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ging them to engage
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 in consultations witഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 h the
community
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 or selected subsets ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 of it
as they deem aഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ppropriate.
>> 
>>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  I don't believe we ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 should
do that but iഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 t raises questions
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hat
>> may be worthഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  thinking about.
Anഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 d, again thinking abഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 out
ekr's
>> commenഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ts and the reality
tഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 hat almost nothing iഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 n the
document is
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 > actionable (other ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 than
giving people nഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ew and different
titഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 les or
>> affiliatiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ons) without LLC
decഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 isions; decisions thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 at
the LLC has,
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 in principle, the opഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 tion
of not making. ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 Given that, maybe
weഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> should be engagഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ing, not in
relitigaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ting issues that
madഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e sense
>> under thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e assumption that
thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 is Program had authoഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rity
and could
>> dഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 efine an RSWG, RSAB,ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  and
other roles andഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  put them in charge
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 but
>> recognizing ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 that there is no
"inഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  charge" other than ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 the
LLC.  If
>> thoഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 se roles are
ultimatഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ely meaningless
exceഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 pt to give
>> non-bഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 inding advice to theഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
LLC, perhaps the whഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ole arrangement is
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >> much too complicaഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ted are
likely to beഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  far too expensive
oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 f the
>> time of thഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ose involved,
especiഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ally those who mightഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
otherwise be
>> woഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rking on agendas morഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 e
directly connectedഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  to the development
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 of
>> Internet techഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 nology. 
>> 
>> I ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 did say "obnoxious",ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
didn't I?
>> 
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 -- 
>> Rfced-futureഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  mailing list
>> Rfഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 [e-mail]
ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 >>
https://www.iab.oഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rg/mailman/listinfo/ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 rfced-future
>> 
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  
> -- 
> Rfced-fuഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 ture mailing list
>ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀  [e-mail]ഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 g
>
https://www.iabഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 .org/mailman/listinfഀ਀㸀㸀㸀 o/rfced-future

ഀ਀ഀ਀