Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: [I18ndir] I18ndir last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11

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

--On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 14:51 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/1/22 8:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Peter,
>> 
>> My snarky comments, to which Pete responded, were not intended
>> for this list because they are about how that directorate is
>> organized and how well it is working rather than anything
>> being discussed on this list. 
> 
> Sorry about that - I forwarded the whole thing to get your
> feedback about internationalization on the record, but could
> have been more careful about removing matters related to
> operation of the i18ndir.

No problem.   I've done worse --it was really about just keeping
the noise down.

>...

>> That goes in a direction I would recommend against.  At
>> present (and under the "old" system) the can reach out to, or
>> confer with, just about anyone they decide they need to
>> consult about just about any issue (I can't think of
>> exceptions, but there might be some).  If they discover they
>> need to pay consulting fees to get the advice they need, 
> 
> The text I proposed didn't say anything about paid consulting.

I noticed.  I just wanted to be sure there was nothing in the
document that would exclude that in the unlikely even that it
should, in the RPC's judgment and without any ceremony other
than sorting out money and contracts with the LLC, be necessary.
IMO, if we can do small things that, without creating serious
ambiguity, make this document even a bit more future-proof, that
is worthwhile.  Some of what followed were other examples of
that.
 
>> nothing prevents them from
>> discussing that with the LLC and asking that the LLC initiate
>> whatever procedures are needed.  I can see nothing in the new
>> model that changes that except that, if the LLC were to decide
>> it needs additional substantive advice, the RSAG and/or RSWG
>> would be good places to start.
> 
> My personal opinion (no document editor hat on) is that anyone
> should be able to talk with anyone they feel they need to talk
> with in order to Get Things Done around here. If RPC folks
> feel that it'd be helpful to have a chat with someone in or
> out of the "RFC community" about internationalization or SVG
> or whatever so that they can make informed decisions or
> contributions, then have at it.

Agreed and I've been trying to say similar things throughout
this process.

> Perhaps we don't need to say
> that explicitly (and it's kind of sad if we think we need to),
> but I would not want to end up in a place where RPC folks
> think their hands or tongues are tied. They're the one who
> have to implement this stuff, after all!

Exactly (and concur about the sadness but I'm a tad concerned
about a control freak or two getting involved in the RSWG and
tying things in knots.  So the closer we can get to letting the
RPC do their jobs -- again, talking with anyone they need to --
and without saying anything that encourages the RSWG (or RSAB)
to meddle into anything but broad principles or otherwise
attempt micromanagement, the happier I'll be.

>...
>> If you think something more is needed in that rather long list
>> in Section 4.3, I'd recommend making it far more general.
>> Please rewrite what I'm about to say, but I'd think about
>> something like:
>> 
>> 	"Identify topics and issues that they encounter while
>> 	processing documents or carrying out other
>> 	responsibilities on this list for which they lack
>> 	sufficient expertise and identifying and conferring with
>> 	relevant experts as needed."
> 
> Something like that seems appropriate, and closer to what I
> had in mind.

Good.  And unless you or others (particularly Jay) think
otherwise, I think that is sufficient to let us omit specific
mention of paid consulting or the LLC out -- IMO, that just
follows naturally from something like the above.

  -john