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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 17:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 1/11/22 12:33 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Lars,
>> 
>> Adding to what Martin just wrote...
>> 
>> On 11.01.22 08:10, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> 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. In other words, I'm  struggling to come up
>>> with examples where significant discussions  would happen
>>> inside the RSAB only. 
>> 
>> In general, yes conversation to happen in the RSWG, but there
>> reasons  why the RSAB members might discuss matters among
>> themselves,  particularly when it comes to implementation of
>> policies. 
> 
> There's another piece here as well: working through feedback
> received in the community calls for comment. "Constituency X
> seems to be concerned about Aspect Y of Proposal Z; do we
> think this rises to the level of something that could harm the
> RFC Series as a whole and should one of us ballot CONCERN?"
> Having a public archive of such discussions could be quite
> valuable.

And, of course, if the RSAB is involved in the RSCE selection
process in any way, even just the selection of the selection
committee as some of us have proposed, that would be another
category of discussions that should probably be kept private.   

More generally (apologies if this has been said already),
nothing we say or do is going to prevent the stream managers
from having a private conversation (in person, on line, or in
email), or even a conversation that involves their
representatives if those are different.  Personally, I would
prefer to have the fact of those discussed be recorded, made
public, minuted, and held in the presence of the RSCE (unless
they are about the RSCE) and and ED (unless they are about them)
even if the content is not public rather than having the fact of
such a discussion kept secret and maybe key people kept out
unnecessarily.  And the latter is all I think we would
accomplish by demanding that such discussions not occur.

So, public mailing list, minutes, encouragement to make as much
public (and in those minutes) as possible, but provision for
private/meetings executive sessions if needed (and, if
necessary, a private mailing list), the fact, topics, and, where
relevant, conclusions of such sessions to be be in those public
minutes and mailing list archives even if the contents of the
discussions are not.

   john