+1 to deferring changes that could impact the RFC Editor Function
Tony
On 2/26/2022, 12:50 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Saturday, February 26, 2022 18:42 +0100 Carsten Bormann
<cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2022-02-26, at 17:53, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> I have tried to review this very active discussion up to
>> now.
>
> I'm starting to understand that this discussion is a great
> dress rehearsal for how RSWG will operate.
>
> Maybe we can take the opportunity and kick off the experiment
> proposed by the IESG now and go into the greater discussions
> once RSWG is operational.
Or maybe we postpone spending energy on new lists and tooling --
both of which tend to create inertia for keeping "experiments"
-- until the RSAB/RSWG are in place and, since AUTH48 is really
part of the RFC Production process, allow them to define and
oversee the experiment along with the IESG.
Hmm. That has been proposed before, so this suggestion probably
adds to the reasons for taking that path. Probably the informal
guidance to the IESG right now should be that, with the new RFC
Editor Model being so close to completion, making _any_ changes
that could impact the RFC Editor Function should be deferred
until the new processes are in places unless they are needed to
deal with clear emergencies.
john
