Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hello,
At 03:18 PM 07-07-2020, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 3:11 PM Brian E Carpenter 
><<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Sorry, I should have been more clear. I think this is a proper 
> subject for IESG and IAB consideration, made somewhat more 
> difficult by anchoring on a historical five author limit that had 
> (at least to me) a fairly unclear rationale.
>
>Absolutely I think that community discussion and rough consensus is 
>appropriate for this and other strategy or policy issues. My concern 
>is that this needs to be facilitated and informed by someone with 
>relevant knowledge and experience in the 
>editing/publishing/library/archival world and that is not us.
>
>Stipulating for the moment that this is true, I don't really see how 
>you get from there to "and this person needs to be in charge of the 
>process". To give an example that I think I also gave on the most 
>recent virtual call, we often have to do things that require a bunch 
>of relevant expertise in the legal world, and that's not us, but 
>address that problem by engaging a lawyer and asking their opinion. 
>Why doesn't that work here?

Please see 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4OVr3l89fY0xq2ay-Khyhne-0Zc/ 
In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to blame the legal side as 
it is the general advice which a person would usually get from a lawyer.

Every now and then the word "community" is used.  If I go by past 
events, it would mean about the hundred persons who attended the 
meetings during which the RFC Series was discussed.  The audience for 
the RFC Series is likely larger than that.  I don't believe that the 
audience would show much interest in strategy or policy matters; that 
does not mean that the audience should be ignored.

It is better to have a person with the relevant expertise to work on, 
for example, an issue such as the historical five author limit, and 
devise a policy if one is needed.  There may be reasons for the 
matter to be handled by someone else, e.g. each Stream wishes to have 
its own policy on that.

A person with a background in archiving or publishing will have a 
wider breath of knowledge as he/she spends time on doing that type of 
work.  The RFC Series could benefit from that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy