Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 12/07/2018 12:46, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 7/11/18 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Well, that's good to hear, but nevertheless it is an IETF BOF and that
>> limits its direct input to IESG decision making (certainly not its
>> range of topics).
> 
> 
> This assertion (which you've raised before) doesn't seem to serve what I 
> suspect your goals are very well.
> 
> Based on this statement and similar statements you've made elsewhere, it 
> looks like you're trying to assert that there is no existing venue in 
> which the topic of multi-stream RFC governance can be discussed with the 
> community,

I'm saying that there's no clearly defined and announced venue for that,
except possibly [e-mail]. So if there are proposals
that affect multiple streams or the series as a whole, there is some
work to be done to ensure that all interested parties are involved.
I'm not saying that's impossible, but it's more than convening an IETF
BOF.

> and so the conversation simply cannot happen. 

It can happen if planned that way. IMHO it has happened, for example,
for the new RFC format, and clearly all the RFC streams were involved
in formally setting up the streams some years ago.

> Given that the 
> alternative would appear to be for the IAB to act without community 
> input (or perhaps with the limited input provided by an IAB workshop), 
> I'm not sure why you're pressing this point so hard. Not only would that 
> kind of action set what I think would be bad precedent, but it would 
> probably not have the outcome you desire.

It wouldn't, because if a number of people felt that the IAB had exceeded
its authority, the outcome would indeed be painful for everybody.

> Or perhaps I've misunderstood: do you think that there is a venue in 
> which multi-stream RFC governance topics can be discussed with the 
> various stakeholders, and that this simply isn't it?

That, yes. (Also, I don't understand why the RFC Series Oversight
Committee isn't heavily involved in this discussion.)

   Brian