Meeting was convened by Eliot and Brian. Mike St.Johns graciously offered to take minutes, and did so for most of the meeting. Martin Thomson helped out the rest of the way. Thanks to both.
The Note Well was presented, as was the agenda, which was approved unaltered. Today we were in Issue Central.
General agreement over the approach in the draft. One nit about freedom of RSWG Chairs to set agenda and meetings "open discussion list" text seems to prohibit meetings and design teams. Peter to provide a tweak.
It was proposed to close this issue, as it was tracking a decision we believe we are beyond. Eliot mentioned that if people have additional issues relating to the role of the RSE/A, they can of course be rasied.
We now have text for chair selection of both the RSWG and RSAB. We proposed to close this issue, although there are three related points that need addressing:
This was a lengthy discussion around RSWG appeals. The following text is proposed:
Appeals of RSWG decisions can be made to the RSAB if there are concerns about the process followed by the RSWG. Appeals should be made within 30 days of any action. The RSAB then decides if the process has been followed.
deferred
This issue was also deferred, but related to performance. This may be too specific to a particular employment model. If someone has text they want, please post. Otherwise we should close.
There was text in Section 4.1, but people weren't happy with it. So we wordsmithed on the fly to come up with:
The RSE/A will be selected by a search committee formed by the Executive Director of the IETF LLC, taking into account the role definition [13] and any detailed job deescription defined by the relevant parties.
General agreement that there should be an editorial stream and that the RSE/A should manage the stream. Some discussion about possible issues raised if that stream were not to exist.
General agreement that this matter can be deferred into whatever RFC defines the stream.
We had a lot of discussion about issues 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, and 62 as a group. The key issue is how the role of the RPC could change in terms of making decisions that it would view as not strategic. The RSE/A has been a bit of an intermediary between the RPC and the community. If the RPC is to take up that role, what ground rules are needed?
Toward the end of the meeting, Martin proposed the following:
The RPC will routinely encounter novel situations that require that decisions be made. The RPC can -- with consultation with stream managers, the RSAB, or others in the community -- make decisions. The RPC should document and periodically report on the details of these situations to the community. The RSWG might use these reports to inform discussions on strategy
However, we didn't really have a chance to reflect on this text. We will pick this discussion up on the mailing list and at our next meeting.
There is now a working group call for adoption for draft-saintandre-rfced-model-01. This will end on the 6th.
TBD based on IETF scheduler.
No other business.
Meeting adjourned.