Subject: [rfc-i] Comments on draft-flanagan-rseme-01

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 00:54:26 -0700

Hi Heather,

Thanks for hosting the three virtual meetings to discuss about the 
future of the RFC Series.  I read draft-flanagan-rseme-01 and I have 
a few comments about it.

A few weeks ago, I was looking into the IAB programs.  Some of them 
are far from successful.  The program which is relevant to the RFC 
Series showed signs of communication difficulties during the 
discussions on the RFC Series Editor matter.  If I understood 
draft-flanagan-rseme-01 correctly, the proposed fix for that is to 
have past IAB or IETF chairs lead a new IAB program.  I did not find 
anything in the draft to explain why that is considered as good choices.

The draft proposes that there should be clear conflict of interest 
statements by the persons chairing the new group.  The BCP 25 model 
does not provide any guidance about conflict of interest.  How will 
the new group work out what should be in those statements when the statements?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:16:15 +1300

Hi SM,

> anything in the draft to explain why that is considered as good choices.

As for whether an IAB "program" is a good choice, I think it's only
a question of wording, since the IAB "program" concept is not defined
by rules but only by how the IAB chooses to run it. So the issue of
principle here is whether the IAB should be the host for the activity
at all.

The question behind that, which I hope will be discussed frankly, is
whether the community trusts the IAB to act as the host for this with
the necessary neutrality and open-mindedness. If not the IAB, what
other host would you suggest?

Also I remind everybody that the NomCom is open for comments and 6 IAB
seats are under review.

As for whether past I* chairs should be involved, I think the argument
was that we need people who have a broad view of the issues, and past
I* people would qualify. I don't think the argument was any deeper than
that.

> the new group work out what should be in those statements when the statements?

We aren't talking about the kind of financial conflict of interest
that is of concern in corporate boards etc. So I think it's a matter
of common sense that doesn't need working out or formal rules.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 14:06:46 -0800

Hi Brian,
>other host would you suggest?

Does neutrality mean not expressing any opinion in public about this matter?

>I* people would qualify. I don't think the argument was any deeper than

Ok.

>of common sense that doesn't need working out or formal rules.

As I mentioned in my previous email, the draft mentions clear 
conflict of interest statements.  I doubt that leaving it as a matter 
of common sense would be easily understood.

Some corporate boards go beyond the financial aspect.  Would shared 
affiliation be considered as a conflict of interest?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 15:09:25 -0800

> the necessary neutrality and open-mindedness.

given how we got to the current situation, that is definitely in
question.

> If not the IAB, what other host would you suggest?

it may not be clear to all that it needs a host.

randy

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:37:24 -0500

Somebody has to appoint the chairs.  Somebody has to serve as an appeals 
/ support / resolution chain for the discussion.  Somebody has to take 
responsibility for confirming when an agreement is reached, and then 
finding a way for the community to act on that agreement.*

We have relatively few structures for doing this.  Saying that the 
chairs and structure shall appear from thin air seems rather unlikely.

As I stated on the call I was on, I am not happy with this path.  I am 
merely less unhappy with it than I am with any other path I have heard 
suggested or have imagined.

Some of the discussion of the proposal has been helpful.  But wishes for 
magical better answers do not help anyone.

Yours,
Joel

*Yes, I am being optimistic.  The alternative is to watch the whole 
structure collapse.  I prefer to try to improve it.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:56:49 +1300

>> Does neutrality mean not expressing any opinion in public about this matter?

I would expect individual IAB members to have, and express, opinions.
But I think that when such a process is launched, the IAB as a committee
should undertake to *not* express an opinion during the process of
discussion and consensus formation.

Related to that, and again in answer to SM:

>> Would shared 

I don't really think so. Many of us have multiple affiliations.
But when the topic is finding community consensus on the way
forward for the RFC series, we need all viewpoints and all
affiliations represented. Certainly I'd expect people to disclose
their affiliations.

> magical better answers do not help anyone.

Agreed.
   Brian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 05:51:43 -0800

Hi Brian,
>other host would you suggest?

I did not respond to the above question in my previous reply.  In my 
opinion, the IAB is experiencing a trust deficit.  I don't think that 
there has been open-mindedness throughout the discussions.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy