Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: [I18ndir] I18ndir last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 3/2/22 4:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 14:51 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/1/22 8:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

>> ...
> 
>>> That goes in a direction I would recommend against.  At
>>> present (and under the "old" system) the can reach out to, or
>>> confer with, just about anyone they decide they need to
>>> consult about just about any issue (I can't think of
>>> exceptions, but there might be some).  If they discover they
>>> need to pay consulting fees to get the advice they need,
>>
>> The text I proposed didn't say anything about paid consulting.
> 
> I noticed.  I just wanted to be sure there was nothing in the
> document that would exclude that in the unlikely even that it
> should, in the RPC's judgment and without any ceremony other
> than sorting out money and contracts with the LLC, be necessary.
> IMO, if we can do small things that, without creating serious
> ambiguity, make this document even a bit more future-proof, that
> is worthwhile.  Some of what followed were other examples of
> that.

If I recall correctly, in past threads Jay Daley has cautioned against 
saying too much about contracting matters in this document. That said, I 
don't see anything here that would prevent the RPC or IETF LLC from 
paying consultants to assist in various ways.

>>> nothing prevents them from
>>> discussing that with the LLC and asking that the LLC initiate
>>> whatever procedures are needed.  I can see nothing in the new
>>> model that changes that except that, if the LLC were to decide
>>> it needs additional substantive advice, the RSAG and/or RSWG
>>> would be good places to start.
>>
>> My personal opinion (no document editor hat on) is that anyone
>> should be able to talk with anyone they feel they need to talk
>> with in order to Get Things Done around here. If RPC folks
>> feel that it'd be helpful to have a chat with someone in or
>> out of the "RFC community" about internationalization or SVG
>> or whatever so that they can make informed decisions or
>> contributions, then have at it.
> 
> Agreed and I've been trying to say similar things throughout
> this process.
> 
>> Perhaps we don't need to say
>> that explicitly (and it's kind of sad if we think we need to),
>> but I would not want to end up in a place where RPC folks
>> think their hands or tongues are tied. They're the one who
>> have to implement this stuff, after all!
> 
> Exactly (and concur about the sadness but I'm a tad concerned
> about a control freak or two getting involved in the RSWG and
> tying things in knots.  So the closer we can get to letting the
> RPC do their jobs -- again, talking with anyone they need to --
> and without saying anything that encourages the RSWG (or RSAB)
> to meddle into anything but broad principles or otherwise
> attempt micromanagement, the happier I'll be.
> 
>> ...
>>> If you think something more is needed in that rather long list
>>> in Section 4.3, I'd recommend making it far more general.
>>> Please rewrite what I'm about to say, but I'd think about
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> 	"Identify topics and issues that they encounter while
>>> 	processing documents or carrying out other
>>> 	responsibilities on this list for which they lack
>>> 	sufficient expertise and identifying and conferring with
>>> 	relevant experts as needed."
>>
>> Something like that seems appropriate, and closer to what I
>> had in mind.
> 
> Good.  And unless you or others (particularly Jay) think
> otherwise, I think that is sufficient to let us omit specific
> mention of paid consulting or the LLC out -- IMO, that just
> follows naturally from something like the above.

Agreed. Thanks!

Peter