Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 143: RSAB mailing list archives

Please see below.

> On 11. Jan 2022, at 08:32, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> Hello Lars,
> 
> On 2022-01-11 16:10, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 2022-1-11, at 4:38, Wes Hardaker <hardaker@isi.edu> wrote:
>>> Reasons people in this group want a mailing list archive so far:
>>> * transparency
>>> * being able to reference past discussions
>>> * NEW to answer "Would these discussions not happen in the RSWG anyway?": because it makes the RSAB begins to look like a black box where decisions are made and minutes report high level summaries without the detailed discussions that actually took place.
>> so maybe my understanding about the new model is off, but: I have understood the proposed structure to be such that the RSAB really doesn't have a lot of leeway when it comes to not approving proposals by the RSWG, especially not without immediately needing to take the discussion back to the RSWG in such cases.
> 
> Your understanding of that part of the model is correct. But it also means that for that part, there won't be too much to archive anyway.
> 
>> In other words, I'm struggling to come up with examples where significant discussions would happen inside the RSAB only.
> 
> The RSAB also got another role: To 'arbitrate' between the RFC Production Center and the authors. There is an expectation that this will create some precedents, and it is preferable that these precedents, and the discussions that lead to them, are publicly available.

These kind of discussions as well as any discussion on documents should be covered by the RSAB meeting minutes (which would also be the more useful and easy-to-find reference). This is also how the IAB and IESG works: all decisions are minuted in some kind of meeting notes; this means even if a decision is taken on the list, we will add it to the next agenda and minute it there.

I believe this is a good model and think that would also work well for the RSAB.  However, again, no strong opinions here.

Mirja

> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> 
>>> * It matches how the IETF operates (with a counter argument of "this isn't an IETF WG")
>> IMO, it doesn't. The RSWG is supposed to mirror how an IETF WG works, but not the RSAB, which is much more IESG- or IAB-like.
>> Thanks,
>> Lars
>>> Reasons against:
>>> * free-conversations are easier where people don't have to worry about being quoted/attributed
>>> * it sets a precedence (though counter arguments have essentially asked "for who?")
>>> 
>>> I'm sure I missed something.
>>> --
>>> Rfced-future mailing list
>>> Rfced-future@iab.org
>>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
> 