Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:06 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I guess I have two differences with your description.
>

We may be able to chalk this up to bad writing on my part.


> One aspect is that we actually hire the lawyer(s) on a long term basis.
> We do not hire them "when we need advice".
>

Agreed. I think that if we have an expert that requires regular deep
engagement with us, we should retain them on a long term basis.


> The other is that in the area of direction for the RFC Series, I think
> that we need the expertise in helping us ask the right questions on an
> ongoing basis, not just answering questions when needed.
>

I think I agree with this as well. When I was a consultant and when I've
hired consultants, often what we've wanted is precisely this kind of
outside strategy perspective.

-Ekr


> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 7/7/2020 7:37 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 4:14 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     We keep a lawyer on retainer.
> >     So the difference becomes that we are looking for someone who will be
> >     - more engaged in understanding and helping direct the community (the
> >     lawyers explicit do not direct)
> >     - have more ongoing activities, although quite possibly less than
> >     heretofore
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure about the "we" here, as I'm arguing that we should
> > not in fact be looking for this.
> >
> > Rather, I am arguing that the community should drive strategy
> > (potentially with some structure like Martin proposed) and that to the
> > extent to which we need someone with specific expertise in the areas
> > Brian has flagged, we should hire someone to advise us, in much the same
> > way we do for legal advice.
> >
> > -Ekr
> >
> >     Sounds like you are actually arguing for a senior, respected,
> >     contractor.  With a long term relationship.
> >
> >     Yours,
> >     Joel
> >
> >     On 7/7/2020 6:18 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 3:11 PM Brian E Carpenter
> >      > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[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?
> >      >
> >      > -Ekr
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >
> >
>