Re: [Rfced-future] Suggested text for issues #56, #57, #61, #62

Good analysis. 

Regards
   Brian

On 26-Aug-21 12:13, IETF Executive Director wrote:
> From my reading of all of this, we are trying to encode the following separate things but each set of suggested text so far only identifies a subset of these:
> 
> # externalities that affect the RPC
> 
> - the RPC is *instructed by* RFCs (not the RSAB/RSWG)
> 
> - the RPC is *advised by* the RSAB and has a duty to ask for that advice under specific circumstances
> 
> - the RPC is *contractually overseen by* the LLC to ensure that it delivers
> 
> 
> # RPC behaviours
> 
> - the RPC *participates* in the creation of new RFCs, at least in an advisory capacity
> 
> - the RPC *reports* to the community on its performance and plans
> 
> - the RPC *consults* with the community on its plans
> 
> - the RPC *negotiates* its resources with the LLC
> 
> 
> Perhaps if we could agree this list we could then turn it into text?
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
>> On 26/08/2021, at 11:21 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Front posting to say that I could in fact live either with Mike's text
>> or with Eliot's as amended. I think that we are really trying to say
>> the same thing and it's a question of which is clearest.
>>
>> Regards
>>   Brian
>>
>> On 26-Aug-21 11:10, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2021 6:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> On 26-Aug-21 08:38, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2021 11:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>> Front posting for cause:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Mike's concern about Eliot's text derives from the way it starts.
>>>>>> So I'd suggest:
>>>>> Hi Brian -
>>>>>
>>>>> If I thought that was the problem I would have provided changes to your
>>>>> text rather than new text.  I'm too lazy to write if I don't have to.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRT to your text, I really need it to not link the RPC with the
>>>>> RSWG/RSAB and instead link it to the documents.  While this group has
>>>>> finally gotten the point that the RPC does not "report to" those groups,
>>>>> nor can those groups command the RPC, what I'm afraid of is 3-5 years
>>>>> down the road where someone uses the text to justify the RSWG giving
>>>>> operational directions to the RPC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also want to get the point made that the RPC works with the RSWG as 
>> it
>>>>> tries to form strategic policy and that the RSWG is the primary place
>>>>> for the RPC interaction rather than - as your text seems to imply - the
>>>>> RPC is responsible for interacting with all comer directly on matters 
>> of
>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the above is meant to imply that the RPC doesn't work with
>>>>> authors on their documents - but that's not the thrust of the text you
>>>>> and Mirja crafted and I think is handled elsewhere?  If not, a simple
>>>>> line that indicates that set of interactions would be useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> The RPC has both a role in the strategic process (e.g. sanity checks on
>>>>> whether things will work, or the costs of doing new things as specified
>>>>> by the Editorial series - e.g. with the RSWG), and the tactical process
>>>>> (publishing documents while adhering to the aforesaid Editorial series
>>>>> documents - with the RSCE and RSAB I would expect).  Those need to
>>>> be
>>>>> teased apart and specified separately and the RPC interaction with the
>>>>> community on strategy ideally given a single specified place to happen.
>>>>> That will help both the LLC and RPC scope the tasking required to
>>>>> support the strategic process.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way - I'm not sure how you would have come to the conclusion you
>>>>> came given the text I wrote.  Could you explain how you got there?
>>>> Simply because the thrust of your text was to say that the line of
>>>> command was policy --> IETF LLC --> RPC and Eliot's text seemed
>>>> to dilute that. Whereas yours seemed to emphasise that and dilute
>>>> the RPC's ability to interact widely with the community as well as
>>>> with authors. (I don't dispute that RSWG is the *primary* place
>>>> for such interaction.)
>>>
>>> Actually, the line of authority is more generally:
>>>
>>> Community -> RSWG -> RSAB ->  Editorial Series -> RPC and LLC -> RPC.   
>>> Both of the "->" indicators pointing to the RPC are constrained by the 
>>> terms of the engagement agreement.   There's also   
>> RSAB - advise when 
>>> requested -> RPC.
>>>
>>> I phrased it as I did because there's a large difference between an 
>>> ability and a requirement.   The following has "They shall report ... to 
>>> and consult with ... the broader community regarding...".   Which 
>>> implies a requirement that RPC engages with the community on the 
>>> strategic stuff outside of the RSWG.   Maybe I'm parsing this 
>> too 
>>> tightly, but the RSWG (and the RSWG mailing list for sure) is the place 
>>
>>> where the community gets to engage this process and specifying them as 
>>> separate entities in this instance (not generally), muddies the water 
>>> for this specific partner.
>>>
>>> I guess I don't understand what RPC ability you think I removed?   Maybe 
>>> you could describe a scenario which is prohibited by my text?
>>>
>>>> They shall report regularly to and
>>>> consult with the RSAB, RSWG, and broader community regarding
>>>> status of  work undertaken and plans for work to be done,
>>>> including timeline for  implementation as well as any key
>>>> risks they identify.
>>>
>>> Then there is this clause:
>>>
>>>> The LLC is requested to negotiate a task with the RPC that permits and 
>>
>>>> requires the RPC to collaborate in at least an advisory capacity in 
>>>> the content creation of the Editorial series RFCs as they affect the 
>>>> RPC and that collaboration is expected to be the main path for 
>>>> community input into the RPC processes.
>>>
>>> Which enhances the *ability* of the RPC to participate in the RFC series 
>>> process discussions as a partner rather than as a supplicant or 
>>> afterthought.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the response! Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Brian
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Rfced-future mailing list
>> Rfced-future@iab.org
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
> 