[rsab] Stream managers [was: Re: Structure of meeting [was: Re: Draft minutes of the 2023-07-24 RSAB Meeting and the Stream Managers + RFC Production Center Meeting]]

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Colin,

Changing the subject line again but see below.

> On 21. Aug 2023, at 14:08, Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 21 Aug 2023, at 12:49, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jay,
>> 
>> Please see below.
>> 
>>> On 21. Aug 2023, at 13:01, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Mirja
>>> 
>>>> On 21 Aug 2023, at 11:24, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Jay,
>>>> 
>>>> The last meeting we had the follow structure:
>>>> 
>>>> Part One: RSAB
>>>> 
>>>> Administrivia (attendance, agenda bash, announcements)
>>>> 
>>>> Document Approval
>>>> 
>>>> Topic X
>>>> 
>>>> Other Business
>>>> 
>>>> Part Two: Stream Managers + RFC Production Center
>>>> 
>>>> Topic Y (set by the RPC)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Compared to your proposal below, I think it's actually better to only have about two “parts" to make clear these parts have a different scope.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess we can add a standing item for policy approval which the should be point 3 in part one. However, I think we also decided that we usually do the policy decisions on the mailing list as they usually should happen in a timeline manner and don’t need e.g. time for a in-depth document review (as the document approval do). However, we could still add it as a standing, to note any mailing list approvals in the meeting minutes (just as an additional way to increase transparency) and also have a slot in case it cannot be resolved by mail and needs discussion time.
>>>> 
>>>> For executive session, we might need them in both parts of the meeting and should record them there. However, for logistical reason we might want to take any executive things at the very end of both meetings as otherwise some people would need to leave the room and come back. However, it depends on what exactly is discussed and who needs to be in the room. So let’s not solve this now but decide when we need.
>>>> 
>>>> Anything about this agenda structure that does not address our needs in your view?
>>> 
>>> I’m generally happy with this, but I think it is important to note that the chair changes from the RSAB Chair to the RPC Director for these two parts, otherwise the RSAB will be overstepping the line into operational stuff.
>> 
>> Sure, we can do that.
> 
> These really seem like separate meetings to me. I don't understand the desire to combine them.

The desire is solely because these are the same people. I was actually assuming that we won’t have a separate stream manager meeting anymore when we designed the RFC Editor v3 model. However, there is a desire by the RPC to discuss operational matters with each stream before implementing something and I think we should keep supporting the RPC in their needs. Particularly ensuring that the needs of all streams are covered when something new is implemented is valuable. I personally would not see a problem with doing this as part of the RSAB meeting but if people prefer to separate these things more visibly, I thought that's easy to address… but see below.

> 
>>> Also, if executive sessions are required then they should be in whichever part requires them, not a combined session at the end, as again that blurs the lines.
>> 
>> Yes that would be best. I was just think about the logistics but we can definitely put it like this on the agenda and then re-org if needed. However, again let’s figure that out when we need.
>> 
>>> 
>>> We should remember that RSAB members and Stream Managers may be different people at some point in the future and a structure that treats them as one will be difficult to unpick later on.
>> 
>> Actually that’s not my expectation. In the IAB we only assign one position and I really don’t see a need to split it up and allocate two people. We have the option to not assign the chair but we would then not create two positions. I think the IESG is doing the same. For IRTF I also don’t really see how someone else than the IRTF chair could serve in these position(s) (but maybe something for Colin to comment) and for the ISE there is even less choice.
> 
> The Stream Manager and RSAB member roles are quite distinct. I can imagine a future IRTF Chair might want to separate them and appoint someone to the RSAB, and we spent some considerable time when writing RFC 9280 to ensure that this is possible.

I thought we spend considerable time in ensuring that you can separate the IAB/IESG/IRTF chair role from the position as stream representative in RSAB. And actually the role as stream manager is not defined anywhere… 

From my point of view in the IAB, very IAB member could serve as “stream manager” equally well because we discuss all docs in the IAB calls as well as all other things related to IAB RFC publication. However, for me it would not make sense to have a different person serving on RSAB or as stream manager. I think it's the same kind of knowledge that you need when monitoring and potentially participating in RSWG (namely how does my stream handle X). Maybe you can see the document review or policy decisions as on top of the RSWG monitoring/participation but that seems rather minor effort and of course also related to discussion in RSWG.

I don’t really see how you can easily separate this for the IRTF because it seems to me nobody else on the IRSG has the same level of overview on document processing. I guess you could try and change this and share the whole document process among IRSG members (at large) but that’s a bigger change. I understand the desire to separate the RSAB part because monitoring RSWG is quite some work but I don’t see how someone could successfully monitor RSWG without knowledge of doc process in the IRTF; maybe a former IRTF chair could but that person would still need to working close with the IRTF chair.

So to sum up my assumption was there is actually no separate stream manager role anymore (given that role was never defined anymore officially anyway).

Mirja
 
 

> 
> Colin
> 
>