Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check: Issue 22

> On 23/06/2021, at 8:18 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> From my perspective, you are correct that it is a bit of a misalignment.  But...   A committee is not a stream manager.  And giving any of the members of the RSAB a second stream confuses the streams identity.

It’s not a “content” stream though - it’s a “meta” stream that all the other streams have a strong stake in, which gives it a distinct identity. 

>  Thus, we bend / stretch the RSEA role a bit?

But what does that mean in practice given that all the decisions about this stream are made by the RSWG? If I may introduce a useful English expression into IETF discourse, it’s as much use to the RSEA as a chocolate teapot. 

Jay

(sent from my phone)

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
+64 21 678840
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 6/22/2021 7:44 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>>>> On 23/06/2021, at 2:51 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch <mailto:lear@lear.ch>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In yesterday's meeting there was general consensus that there should be a new stream, and that the RSE/A should manage it. 
>> Thinking about this overnight, it seems misaligned with the rest of the proposed new structure for the RSE/A to manage this stream.  The new process is quite clear that all of the content of this new stream is generated by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB, so would it not make more sense for the RSAB to manage this stream?  If not then I’d like to understand why it should be the RSE/A and what "manage" means in practice given this new process, because AFAICT it doesn’t mean anything.
>> Jay
>>> The general argument was that there should be no supervisory check performed by the IAB after the RSAB has approved a document.
>>> 
>>> Please send any concerns by 6 July.
>>> 
>>> Eliot
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Rfced-future mailing list
>>> Rfced-future@iab.org <mailto:Rfced-future@iab.org>
>>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>> -- 
>> Jay Daley
>> IETF Executive Director
>> jay@ietf.org <mailto:jay@ietf.org>
> 

Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check: Issue 22 – new stream for RFC Editor