Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

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

On 12/07/2018 15:37, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 7/11/18 8:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 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].
> 
> The BOF was announced on that list 
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2018-June/010237.html), 
> and the IETF itself is a non-member organization, so any such interested 
> parties are free to participate. You seem to be implying that some set 
> of interested parties is being excluded from the conversation in some 
> way, but I'm not sure evidence supports that position.
> 
> ...
>> It can happen if planned that way. IMHO it has happened, for example,
>> for the new RFC format...
> 
> The RFC format work was an IETF BOF too [1] (three, actually), and those 
> specific BOFs resulted in input that went well beyond impacts on the 
> IETF stream. I believe your original statement about the scope of 
> discussions that can take place in such a venue is more refuted than 
> supported by the precedent you cite.

There's a real difference, in my opinion, in that the definition of
the streams was a codification of existing practice, and the format
update was something people have been requesting for many years.
Neither of them showed any signs of being fundamentally contentious.
This time, we've seen a much more radical proposal which, if carried
forward, would fundamentally change the series. In that case you can't
duck the question of authority and who calls consensus.

   Brian