Re: [Rfced-future] One additional entity for our model to consider

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

FYI now Issue #85.

On 25.09.21 03:14, Adam Roach wrote:
> I've been mostly following the shape of things in this working group 
> via the mailing list (many thanks to the chairs for keeping the 
> conversation so thoroughly organized that this is possible), and 
> finally took the time to read draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-03 in its 
> entirety. I really like the way the appendices both describe and 
> rationalize the changes from existing practice.
>
> There's one item that is conspicuous by its absence from the 
> appendices and from the conversation so far [1]. RFC 5620 section 4.1 
> created and defined an RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). With the 
> publication of RFC 6635, the formal constitution of that group (at 
> least as it existed under the IAB aegis) became obsolete; however, the 
> group continued on in a quasi-formal capacity [2] as a group of 
> trusted advisors to the RSE.
>
> In reviewing the description of the RSAG at 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/rsag/>, and comparing it to the 
> responsibilities in draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-03 section 3.1.1, 
> the purpose of *today's* RSAG appears to be a proper subset of the 
> RSWG purpose. There are some key differences, however, between the 
> RSWG and RSAG in terms of who can access mailing list archives, who 
> can view minutes, who can participate, and who can observe activities. 
> Along all four of those dimensions, I think the RSWG more closely 
> reflects modern thinking about how our community believes governance 
> ought to work.
>
> There are also mechanical aspects of how today's RSAG is described 
> that don't seem to connect to the emerging model coherently: for 
> example, the sample of the topics it is currently described as 
> providing guidance for would clearly require approval by the RSAB in 
> our new model, meaning they would need to originate from -- or at the 
> very least pass through -- the RSWG.
>
> Given the foregoing, and given the new structure emerging from this 
> current endeavor, I believe that it is time to formally deprecate the 
> RSAG, and that draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model (as the document that 
> defines the RSWG) is the document that should do so.
>
> I want to be clear that the role of informal or semi-formal consulting 
> advisors to the RPC is of value, and that it is probably worthwhile to 
> include some description of these relationships in the document we're 
> developing (which means that we should probably have a discussion in 
> this group of what those relationships look like). I have no doubt 
> that RSAG provided value to the process under the old structure, and 
> we should seek to ensure that similar value exists in the next version 
> of the RFC Editor model.
>
> /a
>
> ____
> [1] There is the minor exception of Nevil's document 
> <draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes>, which mentioned the RSAG 
> in passing, but which was unclear regarding any proposed disposition 
> for it at the end of this process. There are also a number of recent 
> emails that use the "RSAG" acronym to refer to what I surmise is the 
> RSAB in the emerging model, although it is entirely possible that I am 
> simply misunderstanding those emails.
>
> [2] In addition to the presence of the RSAG's purpose and formal 
> membership list on the RFC Editor page, there are a number of aspects 
> of the RSAG that make it difficult to describe as "informal." Two 
> examples: prior to the recent sequence of online-only meetings, the 
> RSAG formally met in private, IETF-provided meeting rooms on Tuesdays 
> of every IETF meeting week; and the RSAG continue to maintain and 
> presumably use a private mailing list described at 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsag>.
>