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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Proposed text in the appendix about changes from RFC 8728...

   Version 1 of the RFC Editor Model {{RFC5620}} specified the
   existence of the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), which was no
   longer specified in Version 2 of the Model. For the avoidance of
   doubt, this document affirms that the RSAG is obsolete and its
   charter is no longer in force.

Peter

On 9/24/21 7:14 PM, 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>.
>