Subject: [rfc-i] Short report: first virtual interim meeting, RFC Editor Model process discussion

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:26:37 -0700

Hola a todos!

The first of three virtual interim meetings was held earlier today. The slides and a link to the recording are available off the RSE wiki page:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=interim <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=interim>

As a reminder, these calls are purely to discuss process around changes to the RFC Editor model. Specifically:
Who manages the community discussion?
Who needs to be invited to the table?
Who calls consensus?

As expected, the majority of individuals (but not all!) were active members of the IETF community. It is worth noting that while several additional organizations were invited, there was a certain amount of pushback by some of those organizations - they are interested in seeing that RFCs continue to be produced, but do not feel it necessary and/or appropriate for them to be involved with HOW the RFCs are produced.

Here’s a synthesis of what I heard from the participants on today’s call. Again, this is just the first of three virtual interim meetings, so additional proposals are likely to develop and/or revise what I’m describing below. 

---
The stream managers and and a small number of community at-large members should be part of a committee that would work much like a design team <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/design-teams/>  A chair and a co-chair should be chosen from within that committee to run a working group. That working group is not to be part of the IETF (though much participation is expected from within the IETF community). An important characteristic of the chair (and possibly co-chair) is clearly identifying any potential Conflict of Interest that the chair(s) have before they call consensus. 

A key characteristic and requirement of the working group is openness of participation and process.

While external stakeholders may not be interested in defining/developing the RFC Editor model, they should still be offered another opportunity to comment on any plans after those plans are developed (and before a full consensus call is made).
---

Participants on the call did note that while IETF working groups have known challenges, the openness of that process has quite a bit of merit. 

The goal is to continue to listen and see if there is any consensus by the end of those meetings, and to discuss any proposal(s) at the meeting in Singapore during IETF 106. That meeting will support remote participation.

Links to the WebEx information for the next two interim meetings are available on the RSE wiki (see link above).

Questions, clarifications, and comments are welcome, and many thanks to the people who took the time to join the call today!

-Heather

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest