Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on -07

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 12/23/21 10:26 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 12/23/2021 2:33 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On this:
>>
>> On 22.12.21 21:56, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> S 4.3 bullet 16 - Is this needed if the RPC is an ex officio member 
>>> of the RSAB? 
>>
>> For context the bullet says the following:
>>
>>     16.  Liaising with stream approving bodies and other representatives
>>          of the streams as needed.
>>
>> N.B., “as needed.”
>>
>>> Shouldn't that be where this interaction mostly happens?  "Stream 
>>> approving bodies" is different than "stream manager" and not having a 
>>> single POC might be problematic.  (Sorry - I see this change was made 
>>> -05 to -06, but there are a number of places in this document where 
>>> telling the RPC to talk to an organization is just a bad idea - this 
>>> comes under the heading of unintended consequences). 
>>
>> One example of when it would be necessary for the RPC and a stream to 
>> communicate would be in relation to boiler plate questions or 
>> changes.  Another case might involve meta-information such as 
>> obsoleting/updating of RFCs.  According to the draft, these sorts of 
>> things would not be appropriate for the RSAB, but for the individual 
>> streams themselves.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
> I think that's a fair interpretation, but it used to be "stream 
> managers" and AFAICT, that was changed to "stream approving bodies" 
> primarily to eliminate the "stream manager" term, rather than to address 
> the point you made and hence leading to the question. It also is weird 
> when reading it for the ISE.
> 
> How about "Liaising with other representatives of the streams as needed" 
> which says that just not the RSAB member of a stream might be important?

I think this is an improvement.

Peter