On 25-Jul-19 16:00, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:16:29PM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> First, for those of us not on the RSOC, what transpires between
>> the RSOC and the RSE is completely opaque....
>>
>> However, this lack of information has led to a situation in which the
>> IAB is *accountable* for RFC publication but not *responsible*,
>
> Melinda,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
Yes, and as I implied somewhere in one of the threads, we did miss this
aspect of the "RFC Editor model" during its development. (I said it another
way: that the IAB isn't actually chartered to have that accountability
and responsibility, but only to approve RFC Editor appointment and policy.)
> I had noticed that there was someone
> from the RSOC which said on one of the interminably long e-mail
> threads, hey it's not *our* fault, we just make recommendations, it's
> the IAB which acts on them. (And the IAB hadn't even met yet, so
> nothing was a done deal, so we're doubly not to blame for what
> happened.)
>
> And then there was an e-mail from someone on the IAB saying, "hey we
> don't micro-manage the RSOC, we give them the freedom to do their
> thing" --- with the net result that it appeared that no one thought
> they owned the responsibility.
>
> I agree with you that this does appear to be a structural problem, and
> hopefully it shouldn't be too hard to address it now that it's been
> exposed.
If we want the 50-year-old RFC Series to continue as an institution,
we do need to address this, but I'm not so sure it's as easy as you
suggest. I don't want to say more before I've caught up on the discussion,
since I had to leave the plenary early for a pre-arranged meeting.
Brian
