Honestly, I'm kind of puzzled as to what is being espoused here.
One argument I've heard frequently in this discussion is that
the RFC series is bigger than the IETF and so any changes need
to be signed off by a broader community, To pick an example
of this theme:
A first important consequence is that major decisions about the
future of the RFC Series must be taken by a consensus of a very broad
community. That doesn't mean the IETF or the IAB. It means the IETF
and IAB, plus the IRTF, plus many other people who have contributed
to, or made use of, the RFC Series over the last fifty years. How to
reach out to this community is in itself a big question.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-request-for-comments-01#section-3
However, as with any community process, someone must ultimately be
responsible for determining what has consensus. At present, that
responsibility seems primarily to have been given to the IAB, though
presumably we could invent some other structure. However, I'm somewhat
at a loss to understand what you're getting at here:
as those august bodies oversaw postel, braden, ... oh wait.
Either the RSE is responsible to the community or they are not. If
they are, then there needs to be some mechanism for ensuring that. If
not, well, that's certainly a model (in the open source community it's
often called BDFL), but I think would need a stronger argument than
you seem to be offering here. Or do I misunderstand you?
-Ekr
One argument I've heard frequently in this discussion is that
the RFC series is bigger than the IETF and so any changes need
to be signed off by a broader community, To pick an example
of this theme:
A first important consequence is that major decisions about the
future of the RFC Series must be taken by a consensus of a very broad
community. That doesn't mean the IETF or the IAB. It means the IETF
and IAB, plus the IRTF, plus many other people who have contributed
to, or made use of, the RFC Series over the last fifty years. How to
reach out to this community is in itself a big question.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-request-for-comments-01#section-3
However, as with any community process, someone must ultimately be
responsible for determining what has consensus. At present, that
responsibility seems primarily to have been given to the IAB, though
presumably we could invent some other structure. However, I'm somewhat
at a loss to understand what you're getting at here:
as those august bodies oversaw postel, braden, ... oh wait.
Either the RSE is responsible to the community or they are not. If
they are, then there needs to be some mechanism for ensuring that. If
not, well, that's certainly a model (in the open source community it's
often called BDFL), but I think would need a stronger argument than
you seem to be offering here. Or do I misunderstand you?
-Ekr
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:39 PM Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm happy to include IRTF and ISE; their omission was a simple
> oversight. But even if we expand my statment to say "The primary way
> the RFC editor adds value is by publishing IAB/IETF/IRTF/ISE
> documents", then wouldn't the natural course be, for example, for the
> owners of those streams to collectively oversee the RFC editor?
as those august bodies oversaw postel, braden, ... oh wait.
this all looks to be a sequel to the rfc++ bof. it's trumpian
times, if one can not win the argument, escalate and destroy.
randy
