"Pete" == Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Pete> On 5/25/06 at 4:30 PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to
>> the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.
Pete> Sam, I'm sorry, but this is completely unadulterated
Pete> NONSENSE. Who is this "we" to whom you are referring that is
Pete> "paying for it"? The IETF folks who happen to go to
Pete> face-to-face meetings (which isn't nearly everyone in the
Pete> "IETF community", let alone everyone who gets to publish
Pete> RFCs) pay enough to cover meeting costs and a part of the
Pete> secretariat. So the money you are talking about is really
Pete> ISOC money, and you had better not be claiming that the RFC
Pete> Editor is accountable to ISOC's corporate sponsors.
We, here, is the set of people collectively who recently decided that
we wanted greater budget accountability and went to a lot of trouble
to form IASA and to start documenting a bunch of informal
arrangements. As part of that I at least expected to have greater
accountability to the community. I don't care what community. I
don't see a difference between IETF, IETF community, Internet
community and rfc-interest community.
I understand some people do.
I do see a huge difference between the IAB and all of the above. (I
see a huge difference between IESG and all of the above too, if anyone
It's fine in my mind if the IAB judges consensus of the community
whatever community that is.
However there needs to be a way for a member of this
community--whatever it is--to make a proposal, to get enough support,
and to have that proposal be adopted.
I.E. it is fine if the IAB of whomever can do a lot of things on their
own. However the community needs the ability to either guide the IAB
or override the IAB if there is disagreement.
There needs to be a formal process because that's how we get
accountabilitiy. That process needs to be open and fair. Open and
fair processes have some dispute resolution/appeal mechanism.
I do not relish the prospect of inventing all that all over again just
for the rfc-editor. I'd much rather use the heaviest weight process
(publishing a BCP) we have available to us as an override. I'm happy
if the last call for such a BCP needs to have input from a broader
community. I'm happy if the IAB rather than the IESG judges consensus
provided there is an appeals process that involves more than just the
Ietf mailing list