Minutes of the RFC Editor Futures Program

IETF 111

A special thank you to the minute takers, Martin Thomson and Jared Mauch.

The meeting was conviened, the agenda and Note Well presented. There was no agenda bashing. The agenda consisted of going through a particular set of issues. We added one more at the end.

Agenda

Issues

Issue 60: Resolution of disputes between the RPC and authors with cross-stream implications

This issue has been closed.

Issues 57, 61, 62:

Replacing the previous RSE role in gathering requirements for the RPC

Communicating decisions about RPC projects/priorities to the community

How are RPC priorities set?

This issue, as well as issues 57 and 62 are related to text that Jay provided about the RPC presenting a work program. One question is how to set community expectations in terms of what work has been, will, and won't be accomplished, as well as how feedback from the community will be taken into account.

Jay made the point that having a work program is thus important for transparency to the community. This text is not yet in the draft.

One question that arose was how priorities are managed, and what is redress when community members disagree. That is, as Brian Carpenter pointed out, what is the workflow to resolve those disagreements?

The general feel is that the LLC is accountable to the community, and that they should accept feedback and take whatever flack or credit for the RPC's report.

There was also some retiscence expressed about the approach of a work program unless and until it is understood what a work program is.

Jay pointed out that this program specifically eliminated the RSAB or RSWG as a point of escalation, and so really all that is left is the LLC.

The general view seemed to be that Jay's text was a good start. One concrete suggestion is that a diagram be placed into the document to show that workflow. Barring objections, the editor should attempt such a flow. In addition, some flexibility should be added in terms of the time frame of the reports (e.g., maybe not annual but periodic).

Issue 40: How to select the selection committee?

There was general agreement that the term "search committee" should not be used. Instead, we agreed on "selection committee". There was a lengthy discussion about whether the committee should look at requirements or specific candidates. At the end of the day, the latter prevailed, and the following text seems to have consensus:

The LLC will form a selection committee, including members from the community, that will be responsible for making a recommendation to the LLC for the RSEA. The selection committee will take into account the role definition [CITE] and any other information that the community deems necessary or helpful in making its recommendation. The LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSEA.

Issue 47: What is success?

This revolves around what some called a "mission statement" for the series.

There was a discussion about whether success should be defined in the current document, or whether that should be the responsibility of the working group that is formed as a result of this work.

In order for anything to go into the current document, we would need some text.

Issue 49: RSEA response to feedback

This has to do with the RSEA's ability to view and respond to community feedback. The fundamental question was whether we could encode rules in a governance document to provide that feedback, or whether that had to be left as a management responsibility. Mike agreed to provide a proposal on list, which he subsequently did. Discussion there continues as of this writing.

Issue 55: Suggestions for ongoing RS[EA] evaluation

This has to do with balancing and weighting community feedback. We had a brief discussion about this and came up with the following workflow:

  1. Community feedback to the
  2. LLC produces a draft performance evaluation for the RSAB (excluding the RSEA)
  3. RSAB (excluding RSEA) provides feedback back to the LLC on that evaluation.

The editor (Pete) should add some text that accomplishes the above.

Issue 25: Who writes the Statement of Work?

There was some concern initially that the IED would not feel comfortable writing an SOW for the RSEA position. Indeed Jay indicated that until recently he would not have felt comfortable doing so, but that now there is sufficient detail in our document that he does. The group will leave this in his hands and the issue will be closed.

Issue 38: Delegates for RSAB members

This issue was addressed as part of AOB in the agenda.

There was a proposal made to the list that the bodies that send members to the RSAB establish their own processes to manage when and how RSAB members are replaced.

A concern was raised about what would happen if such a replacement occurred at an inconvenient moment in time. The general sentiment was that we should burn that bridge when we come to it.

Document Update Cadence

The plan of record is to produce an update per month, after consensus has been called on issues from the preceding meeting, but shortly in advance of the next meeting. This presumes Peter Saint-Andre's availability.

AOB

One issue above was added.

In addition, the chairs wanted to thank the program for working substantially collaboratively, and noted that the resolution of issues was accelerating.

Next Meeting

A doodle will shortly take place for the next meeting.