Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 27/06/2020, at 3:01 PM, Nevil Brownlee <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin:
> I've updated my Internet Draft to include a suggestion of what an RSEB (RFC Series Editorial Board) could be structured.  Take a look at https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes-01.html <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes-01.html>
> 
> Of course, any suggestions for changes/improvements/etc to that draft are welcome :-)

Some questions:

Conceptually there are the following layers at which the RSE needs to operate:

a.  the long-term strategic level of where the series goes
b.  the medium-term managerial level of what tools are used, whether the SVG implementation is rethought, what performance is expected of the RPC, what the minimum standards are for a document to be accepted for processing, etc
c.  the short-term operational level of whether X change should be made the vocabulary, how Y should be rendered

It is not clear to me what role you see for the RSE/RSEB at each of these levels, specifically:

q1.  Am I correct in assuming from section 2 "RSE Responsibilities" that you still see the role of the RSE as convening and managing the community process that agrees the long-term strategy?
q2.  If so then is the only role of the RSEB to assist in calling consensus or does the RSEB have a role in representing the community view? 
q3.  How do you see the discussions/decisions for the managerial level working between the RSE/RSEB/Community?  (i.e. it’s not clear to me from your document what role, if any, the community has in this)
q4.  Does the RSEB have any role at all in the operational level or is that left to the RSE, working with whatever team/process they determine is appropriate?

It may be easier to answer those questions with your own definition of the levels.

thanks
Jay


> 
> Cheers, Nevil
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:43 AM Martin Thomson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, at 07:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 24-Jun-20 19:54, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > > We don't need a single person (or contracted entity, if that includes more than one person) to be given the task of determining strategy..  If we need a strategy to serve our community, then maybe that community should setting and owning that strategy.  Not indirectly, via an appointed custodian, but directly.
> > 
> > I don't understand how that would work in the absence of a group and a 
> > group leader to determine what the community is (since it's not the 
> > IETF) and what the community's rough consensus is. Who would they be? 
> > In my book, the RSE and the RFC Series Board.
> 
> I don't think that is necessarily the case.
> 
> The process that we're following has the same requirements and challenges.  It has leadership.  Two leaders in fact, which is more than twice as good as relying on a single person.  It has open participation.  (I don't know what RFC Series Board is, but it implies a closed group, just as RSE implies an individual.)
> 
> Speaking strictly about strategy, the structure of what we have here is just about as good as we will get in all the ways that matter.
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
> 
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------
> Nevil Brownlee, Taupo, NZ
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]