WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
The intention, as I understand it, regarding the RSOC is:
1) The IAB is responbsible for oversight of the RSE
2) The IAB understands that charging the full IAB with directly
performing this function is unlikely to be effective
3) So the IAB is assigning a few IAB members, and a number of community
members, to perform that oversight.
4) In order to ensure that this committee has sufficient authority, and
has appropriate ties to the whole IAB, the IAB operates this as a
program of the IAB. I.e., this is the method the IAB is using to
exercise its responsibility and authority.
4') In order to be clear with the community, this is described in the
document rather than being left as an exercise for the discerning
observer of IAB activities.
Whether this "works" or not I leave to others to judge. But it seems
practical and effective to me.
On 7/10/2011 12:41 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi John,
> At 20:50 09-07-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>> (B.27) The organizational location of the RSOC.
>> Most of the document is insensitive to the difference, but we
>> have various bits floating around that describe the RSOC as an
>> "IAB Project" and others, including Section 3.1, that describe
>> an IAB-established "group" (whatever that is). Depending in
>> part on what the IAB does with "Projects", it might make a
>> difference. In particular,
>> * If I understand the way the IAB intended "Projects", they
>> are really integral to the IAB with added outside members.
>> Remember that, while the capability has not been used in
>> recent years and is not explicit in RFC 2850 (the IAB
>> Charter), the IAB has always been able to include
>> participants not listed in the Charter in its meetings and
>> discussions as long as they are not part of the voting
>> process for formal IAB decisions and actions. Such
>> Projects are really part of the IAB but, as such, they
>> probably shouldn't have line-item budgets in the IASA
>> process as this document seems to require for the RSOC in
>> the second paragraph of 4.2. Instead, the RSOC should be
>> budgeted for as part of the IAB budget, just like other
>> IAB Projects, workshops, and other operations.
>> * By contrast, if the RSOC is some sort of IAB-established
>> "Group", it is not clear whether, under RFC 2850, the IAB
>> has the ability to delegate as much authority and
>> responsibility for the RFC Editor function to it as this
>> document contemplates (and the IAB may need a committee or
>> Project to oversee the RSOC). On the other hand, it would
>> be entirely reasonable for that sort of RSOC to have a
>> separate budget line. Even then, having the RSOC be
>> considered part of the RFC Editor Function for budgetary
>> purposes (with the RSE preparing the budget) even though
>> the RSOC makes the RSE selection and oversees the RSE
>> might be considered a bit dicey.
> The Abstract Section mentions that:
> "The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight by way of
> delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is
> described, as is the relationship between the IETF
> Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC."
> The IAB approves the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor
> and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor. It is within the
> IAB's prerogative to decide whether it wants to delegate the finer
> details of that work to a committee, e.g. RSOC. As nobody seemed to have
> any issue with the wording, it's easier for me to skip that debate.
> The IAB runs various programs (you used the term project); one of which
> is for the RFC Editor function. The RSOC cannot remain as an IAB program
> and be integrated into the RFC Editor function at the same time. It
> seems that the IAB wants to spin off the program as a committee; another
> I* body. As that raises questions that nobody wants to answer (one could
> argue that it is too early to ask the question), the model goes through
> twists and turns to get there.
> This community used to have a quaint way to deal with such issues.