Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I guess I have two differences with your description.

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

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.

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
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>