Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forward on process and RS[EA] Oversight
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 06 April 2021 18:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A3F3A2B6E for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uLH5cdYVFb6T for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FD8E3A2B6B for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id k8so14126903iop.12 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r7SZ55WMLnTU/7X1A/FQxMDITPDkbcxgUnI+T9DGwzc=; b=CoHMEnSGuAXDE7hxpzFdCHPWopmQArgVv3FfvO3uG4pbXJissicfXCjKTqh3dRM8+u eMPkhwk00Uq6zxOqbabx02xMiDyxdrmAu8xsNC/9d64cH17bFCXpnPk7lNz7CBlNJLb0 up283axj/qK4k2Sx0x8HmgEnO3CWR34O+/rNG65N3WHjgv/igVVn9OWBcZDfM3ZkzywN XPd+9PNJ4AWPrIG4+YXpQJPh6jhuRNqdQlMtJVnfUj4wGytol56v2rWmi6+SkFd6Z4Is z/KX6/NZmBKIOebFJqSzo9nLXT1It3ZYN6qmb8CTfNEX1P5X+J26NyHpCf+d5HmFMS1+ RVZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r7SZ55WMLnTU/7X1A/FQxMDITPDkbcxgUnI+T9DGwzc=; b=XvtjakkRSCISmTTJ0/s+RH28zEeSl/sWsDuy9SlsbLIxM29lTDPs7EhzHUQyuG0wb5 0XCwSzwoXC7UJRGr1tuXTdygMuIaFifbDJaDLm1MjBDS76yvj2pGH1zcDsXZyI3H+Mww PeyMse3wFANnwr1wPZ4qzj1aJfcCdvf9uF6EJSjufChJzBrDjoCF7RGp/3O5Ix0eGHty tbjkvkUAWivvTWtsw9+Iq9fdI3NCDmOjcEitBBmnEQG7ni1Ysfj3mS3JzKozNMRlfXIk /DGDj6LqUeCk4Nosjgkw2A52LNKHfRSk3eyT/W9632BjxuIIeSeIenh8X6QPgdzge3at An7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LeojhvTQvOtMa5KoYxuy9qDMl7bn/Pae1l0Cy6LGhIwv/24Jg DudSKhrBJvGscUxrLoHokEbVI6pOmd9kbeK7v3aHyj4QoBUU1Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwYP+E7STsqLYYfTbCO4mHx2m8w51VRtbm7+SRy2qeBWHDoqWT0kgDzT3McE9clfqiaNSttUJjqja6xYe/dAJo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:2603:: with SMTP id m3mr29722047jat.64.1617733567787; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <52799FD5-F97E-413E-888C-C44656B8AB7E@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <52799FD5-F97E-413E-888C-C44656B8AB7E@cisco.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:25:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMBpS96im=Gh+BoGm98bsZO-=0PBmXMuQF2ajuq0zHvFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a64caa05bf51f2f4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/QaCNLqQJYqPnQ2E48mPzb8Jk3XE>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forward on process and RS[EA] Oversight
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 18:26:15 -0000
Eliot, Thanks for posting this. I think that the Evolution Process is a good starting point and while it no doubt needs fine tuning, I would be comfortable putting it in a draft under the understanding that mnot indicated, namely that there isn't a presumption that it has consensus. I'm less certain about the RS[EA] Selection. It seems like an odd mix of vague (effectively, the LLC can make any arrangements they want), with concrete (it has to have a 1 year term with 3-5 year extensions). I also think the bit about the feedback is weird. I agree that the LLC should do feedback, but it's hard to square that with fixed-length contracts, especially when you say "the LLC will then make a decision". I think it would e better to just leave this (and the term) at the LLC's discretion. -Ekr On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 6:03 AM Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Everyone, > > Thanks for your patience. As promised at our meeting, the chairs are > putting forward a proposal to move forward. > > This proposal comes in two parts. The first part is the process for how > drafts are developed and approved – or not. It is loosely based on what > Joel presented at IETF 110, but also incorporates earlier agreed text about > the RFCWG. In this proposal, the RS[EA] does get a say on the Approval > Board. However, that person’s is one voice out of five. > > As a companion part of this proposal, and as discussed at IETF 110, the > second part discusses the hiring and oversight of the RS[EA]. > > A few points: > > > - The first part in particular is intended as a compromise between > very different points of view. We do not expect anyone to be perfectly > happy with what is written, but we do ask everyone at this late stage to > withhold objections unless they positively cannot live with what is written. > - Assuming there is rough consensus for this base text, changes can be > made again based on rough consensus. Surely some will be needed here and > there. > - The second part of the proposal is something on which we have spent > less time. It provides a fair amount of freedom to the LLC to set timing > and working method of the role. We expect this text to evolve a bit more, > but again ask that it be accepted as base text. > > > Our proposal is that people take a day or so to read through and consider > both texts, and then ask questions or comment on list. When commenting > settles down, we will open a consensus call. Because there was a specific > request for the accountability text as part of all of this, the consensus > call will be to take both parts as a whole as base text. > > Without further ado, please see the text below, which can also be found on > GitHub: > > > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/draft-evolution-process.md > > And > > > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/rse-hire-and-accountability.md > > Eliot & Brian > > — > Part 1 > > > DRAFT RFC Evolution ProcessScope > > This procedure is applicable to the evolution processes relating to the > management and evolution of the RFC series, including format, tooling, > publication, dissemination, and overall management of the series. > Structure > > The RFC evolution process is governed as follows: > > - The RFC Working Group, whose job it is to develop proposed changes, > and establish community consensus of those changes. > - The The RFC Approval Board, whose job it is to provide final review > of proposals. > > Each group is described below. > The RFC Working Group (RFCWG) > > All RFCWG meetings are open to any participant, subject to intellectual > property policies which must be consistent to those of the IETF [Note > Well]. At body's initial formation, all discussions are to take place on > open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss. The RFCWG > may decide by rough consensus to use additional forms of communication (for > example, Github as specified in [RFC8874]) that are consistent with > [RFC2418]. The group will conform itself to an anti-harassment policy > consistent with [RFC7154,RFC7776]. > > IETF chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each appoint and > oversee a co-chair of the RFCWG. > The RFC Approval Board (RFCAB) > > The RFC Approval Board consists of representatives from each RFC stream > (at the time of this writing, the IAB, the IETF, the IRTF, and the > Indepenent Series), as well as the RS[EA]. The sole function of this group > is to review draft proposals approvedby the RFCWG. The RFCAB may choose its > chair as it sees fit. The group is primarily expected to operate via email > and through any necessary tooling. A record of all proceedings (no matter > the form) will be kept. > Update Process > > The following procedure is used to update the RFC process: > > 1. Someone writes a draft proposal in the form of an Internet-Draft. > 2. If there is sufficient interest in the proposal, RFCWG will adopt > the proposal as a working draft, much the same way a working group of the > IETF would. > 3. The RFCWG will then further develop the proposal. All members of > the RFCAB are expected to participate in discussion relating to all > proposals. > 4. At some point, if the chairs believe there may be rough consensus > exists for the proposal to advance, they will issue a working group last > call. > 5. After a suitable period of time, the chairs will determine whether > rough consensus for the proposal exists. If comments have been received and > substantial changes have been made, it is expected that additional last > calls may be made. > 6. Once working group consensus is established, a community call for > comments will be issued. Should substantial comments be received, the > working group will again consider those comments and make revisions as they > see fit. At this same time, the RFCAB will consider the proposal. > 7. Should substantial changes be made, additional community calls for > comment should be issued, and again comments considered. > 8. Once all comments have been been addressed, the working group > chairs will transmit the latest proposal to the RFCAB. > 9. > > Within a reasonable period of time, the RFCAB will then poll on the > proposal. Positions may be as follows: > - "YES": the proposal should be approved > - "CONCERN" : the proposal raises substantial concerns that must be > addressed. > - "RECUSE" : the person holding the position has a conflict of > interest. > > Anyone holding a "CONCERN" position MUST explain their concern to the > community in detail. The explanation may or may not be actionable. > > A CONCERN may be made for two reasons: > - The proposal represents a serious problem for the group a particular > member represents. > - The member believes that the proposal would cause serious harm to > the overall series, including harm to the long term health and viability of > the series. > > No CONCERN should ever come as a surprise to the RFCWG. > 10. > > If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RFCWG. > Again, all RFCAB members MUST participate. > 11. > > If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is approved. > Again, if substantial changes have been made, an additional call for > community input should be made. > 12. > > If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions remain, a > formal vote of the RFCAB is taken. If a majority of RFCAB members vote to > approve, the proposal is approved. Otherwise, it is returned to the RFCWG. > In the case of a tie, the proposal is approved. > 13. > > When a proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the community, > and it is published as an RFC. > > The roles of the LLC Board and ED > > LLC Board members, staff, and the Executive Director, are invited to > participate as community members in the RFCWG to the extent permitted by > any relevant LLC policies. > Appeals > > Appeals of RFCAB decisions may only be made based on process failures, and > not on the substance of a proposal. These appeals SHALL be made to the ISOC > BoT within thirty days of the RFCAB decision. The ISOC BoT MAY decide only > whether a process failure occurred, and what if any corrective action > should take place. > Discussion > > The intent of this policy is to provide an open forum by which policies > and procedures of the RFC series are evolved. The general expectation is > that all interested parties will participate in the RFCWG, and that only > under extreme circumstances should the RFCAB members have to hold "CONCERN" > positions. To avoid that situation, WG members are encouraged to take RFCAB > concerns seriously, and RFCAB members are encouraged to make those concerns > known early, and to be responsive to the community. In particular, people > are encouraged to respect the value of each stream, and the long term > health and viability of the RFC series. > > This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. In > particular, RFCAB members should be consulting with their constuent groups > on an ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider a proposal, > there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to establish > whatever processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this goal. > > > > > Part 2 > > DRAFT DRAFT DRAFTRS[EA] Selection > > The RS[EA] will be searched for and vetted by a committee formed by the > ED, taking into account the role definition > <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/Issue12-RSE-role.md> and > any detailed job description that we further develop. The search committee > may ask others to take part in the selection process in confidence. The > initial length of service shall be for one year, but then further > extensions will be for three to five years. > RS[EA] Ongoing Performance Evaluation > > Periodically, the ED will send out to the community a call for input on > the performance of the RS[EA]. The evaluation will be based on criteria > specified in the role definition. Was the RS[EA] an active participant in > all/most meetings? Did the RS[EA] provide useful advice to the RPC and to > the WG? Did the RS[EA] exercise good judgment in terms of any role he or > she would have had on the Approval Body? Was the RS[EA] effective in > advising the community on appropriate actions to take or not take? > > The ED will then review the feedback, consulting with stream manager > representatives, and then produce a recommendation to the LLC Board. The > LLC will then make a decision, taking into account that recommendation. > > Whether the RS[EA] role is structured as a contractual or employee > relationship is left to the LLC and ED to determine. > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >
- [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forward o… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Salz, Rich
- Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forwa… Eric Rescorla