Inline. > Andrew, > On 30-Jul-19 15:04, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As ever, I do not speak for the Internet Society though I am employed > > by it. I'm posting this note especially because I have certain > > experiences not widely shared: I was all of an IAB member, an IAB > > chair, an IAOC member, and an IAOC chair during some portion of the > > past where various bits of RFC 6635 applied. > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 07:15:10PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > > >> The key word in RFC Series Oversight Committee is "Oversight". What do > >> people think when they hear "oversight"? They think that a large part > >> the job of whoever has "oversight" is to review and criticize. > > > > I don't think that. What I think is that it is the responsibility of > > the oversight body to ensure that the thing to be overseen is > > accomplished according to some conditions. I'd like to think that the > > conditions are well-operationalized so that people are in a position > > to know about this. > > > > The fundamental basis of oversight is the ability to decide whether a > > given overseen thing is or is not adequately done. At a high level, > > this generally works out to "hire and fire" capability. (Note you can > > do it other ways. Gating-function, for instance, could do this, but > > it seems unwise to implement.) > > > > That capability with respect to the RFC Series Editor goes back at > > least to RFC 2850, which says, "The IAB must approve the appointment > > of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy > > followed by the RFC Editor." This is of course far less concrete than > > the full blown-out description found in RFC 6635. But the basic rule > > is already there. > No, I really don't agree. I was the editor of RFC 2850. It uses the term > "oversight" explicitly in the phrases "Architectural Oversight" and > "Standards Process Oversight and Appeal", but not in reference to the > RFC Editor. It uses a quite different formulation: "The IAB must approve > the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general > policy followed by the RFC Editor." This was not an accident of drafting. I was on the IAB at the time this document was developed and remember the disussions. This distinction was intentional. > (At that time, the organization was ISI and the general policy was created > by Bob Braden and Joyce Reynolds, but we didn't expect that to last for > ever, and it didn't.) > I now believe that the reformulation including "oversight" in RFC5620, > updated in RFC6635, was a collective error, which I certainly missed > at the time. Particularly, the phrase "The IAB retains its oversight > role..." in RFC5620 was inappropriate IMHO, because there was previously > no such formal oversight role to retain. > Would you say that the IAB, whose membership is approved by the ISOC Board, > is therefore under the oversight of ISOC? > I think we got this wrong and now we are paying the price. I am in complete agreement with Brian on this. > IMHO the long term fix will be an "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)" that > underlines and guarantees the independence of the RFC Series and its Editor. Agreed, although it isn't clear to me that all of this can wait for the long term. > To be clear, of course the production and publication contracts need > proper contract management, but that is more of an IETF LLC role. > >> What if everything else we the same, but it had been called the RFC > >> Series Support Committee? And everytime someone thought about or > >> volunteer for or was appointed to the committee they were reminded > >> that this is about supporting the RFC Series? > > > > I don't know what the world would be like in the case of > > terminological change like you propose. But I would like to suppose > > that everyone involved in the IAB, at least, and anyone I (at least) > > ever asked to be on the RSOC regarded their role as making the RFC > > series successful. > I'm sure that's correct. > > And making the Editor's general policy cohere with > > the IAB's agreement is no innovation from 6635: it's right there in > > 2850. It was also in RFC 1601 and RFC 1358. I am not too sure that > > the responsibility of the IAB for this issue is grounded in anything > > earlier than 1358, but I'm also not sure that a responsibility that > > has been repeatedly affirmed in print since 1992 is one that we can > > assume is inoperative. > I still don't see how approving a policy morphed into oversight, which > seems to have morphed further in recent times. By telling a group of > people that they had oversight, we unintentionally set the scene for > things to go wrong. Indeed we did. Ned > > Elsewhere, Mike StJohns has claimed, "This is a senior person who > > really should be co-equal with the IAB and IESG." I do not find the > > documented tradition that suggests this is true. On the contrary, I > > can find documents stretching back to at least 1992 (where I stopped > > digging) suggesting that the RSE is in fact subordinate to the IAB. > Well, that is obviously a matter of interepretation, but my preferred > phrasing is that the relationship should be "collegial". > (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collegial) > That matches what I observed most of the time until very recently. > > That is not to suggest the relationship is some sort of > > directive-management one. In my current job, I have plenty of > > colleagues who know more about their area than I do (i.e. all of > > them), yet I am responsible for their direction and in this formal > > sense they are "subordinate" to me. If any of them messes up, they > > are not responsible to my board: I am. Co-equal suggests that perhaps > > the RSE ought to be picked by nomcom. I'm not too sure that is > > desirable. > Since the skill set is not one we commonly find in our own community, > I agree with you there. A search committee model seems more appropriate. > Regards > Brian
