Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal

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

On 13-Jul-20 19:24, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 05:52:08PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 13-Jul-20 11:16, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, at 06:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>> I stand by the formal piece.  My logic is that we should not create
>>> a new body for this process.  Of the bodies we have, the IAB is most
>>> suitable.
>>
>> Yes. The alternative is a new body. As I've said repeatedly since
>> about 1995, I'd like to see the IAB freed up to do nothing but things
>> related to Architecture. I count IANA and liaisons as part of that,
>> but not running a publishing service.
> 
> We almost certainly don't need a new body for this -- is there even
> enough work for it?  We weren't happy with the RSOC...  I do, though,
> understand and sympathize with the desire to free up the IAB to work
> only on architecture -- I just don't see how to shift this
> responsibility elsewhere.

There are various options that come to mind, but they all amount to a new committee or Board that answers to a wider community than the IAB does. For example:
(a) an RFC Series Strategy Committee nominated by the 4 RFC streams by their own processes, or
(b) an RFC Series Strategy Committee nominated by its own free-standing open nomination process.

And then:
(x) this Committee is constituted and hosted by ISOC, or
(y) this Committee is hosted by a stand-alone RFC Foundation or RFC Trust.

I'm sure there are other options. Once we move contractual oversight explicitly to the LLC, we have a lot of flexibility for the strategy/policy stuff.

Regards,
     Brian