Re: [Rfced-future] A broader look (was: Re: RFC Editor liaison to the IAB? [was: Re: Comment on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12])

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carston

On 17.03.22 07:53, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> And it is all waterfall design.

*Everything* is waterfall design until you establish a system that 
allows for more ... agile... flexibility.  The RSWG / RSAB could do that 
by delegating certain aspects of authority into certain places to make 
things happen faster.  For instance, it would be the height of silliness 
for the RSWG to have to approve all RFC Editor web site pages, but the 
scope of the authority of the RPC to make changes has to be clear.  
Similarly, I see no reason why the RSWG should have to make decisions 
around each and every commit relating to tooling that supports the RPC 
function, but again the scope of authority for checkins to be approved 
has to be clear.  To take that a step further, if the output of tool 
causes material changes to the RFC structure or format, clearly that 
would be something that would at least require heightened review, but 
one that creates new representations or RFCs or takes in new input forms 
for the RPC might require less review.

To me the RSWG and RSAB should be focused in establishing those scaling 
forms so that there is *less* waterfall, more delegation, andmore 
community participation, ably facilitated with the help of the RSCE).

I realize that's a mouthful of a vision, but I don't think it's an 
original concept on my part.

Eliot