Thanks to Wes Hardaker and Peter Saint-Andre for scribing.
The note well was presented.
The chairs opened the meeting and presented the Note Well. We proceeded to bash the agenda. There was a question about whether Item 3 about whether this group gets to decide the approval path.
The chair pointed out that we now have more closed issues than opened issues, and that all of the issues needing addressing now fit on one slide (for now). Some issues were grouped and would be taken as such in the meeting.
No further bashing was necessary.
We opened a discussion on what should happen once this group believes the document is ready to progress.
The issue is that RFC editorial series documents have tended to be informational documents, and an update is needed also to RFC 2850, which itself is a BCP controlled by the IESG.
Therefore, a number of questions were raised:
The comment from the chair was that either approach can be undertaken, but the documents must only be approved together, lest we end up in an inconsistent state.
Some thought that it would be "odd" for a document addressing the RFC Series to update the IAB charter. One person suggested that this document be the first document in the new Editorial series as a BCP. Others felt that informational was sufficient, and yet others felt that BCP under IETF control was appropriate.
There was general consensus that the document should receive broad community review, whatever path it takes.
Participants are invited to share their views, which the chairs will then aggregate and summarize. We will present those views to the IESG and IAB for their consideration. As an aside, it would be a bonus if we are able to provide them with a single view.
We proceeded to go through the issues list. All issues that are proposed to be closed will separately be confirmed on list.
The only comments received on the current text involved seeing that the chair terms were staggered, and one comment that was meant to be directed to the RSAB chair role.
The chair proposed to call for consensus to close this issue, and there were no objections.
These are three separate issues about when to call consensus, when to adopt work, and what is the definition of "community"?
Prior to this meeting a proposal was put forward which reads:
During discussion, there was general agreement that this is how the chairs should behave, and that it addresses issues 45 and 67. With regard to the role of the RSAB, however, one person pointed out that it should be made clear that they are expected to seek broader community review. The chair pointed out that there is some text in the draft that requires exactly that, although it leaves to the RSAB to define exactly who gets sent a solicitation. See Section 3.2.3 of the draft. This should address Issue 69.
Peter will form text around the above bullets for consideration, and a consensus call will then be started.
Several different chairing models were discussed. Either the RSAB chooses its chair, the chair rotates, or there is a fixed chair role. One person was concerned that there was a need to share the pain, and so the chair should rotate. However, in the opinion of the chairs, after some discussion, the rough consensus of the room was that unless and until sharing the pain became a problem, the RSAB should choose its chair. There was also rough consensus that the chair should be chosen annually.
One point was made that the eventuality needs to be addressed regarding what happens if the chair is vacated mid-term.
Peter to encode the above consensus and to propose text that addresses a mid-term vacancy. Consensus call to follow.
There is no real text to address this issue, and so it was deferred from the meeting. What had previously been discussed was a Mission Statement. The chairs would appreciate any proposals.
Text needed. Absent text showing up soon, the chairs will propose to close this issue.
We discussed this in detail and there is now text in Section 4.2.
The chair proposed to close this issue, and there was no objection. However, in subsequently reviewing the mailing list commentary, there is one particular word that needs to be considered, and the chair will raise that point on the list before continuing.
As we begin to get close to done, we want to ensure that we are covering that which needs to be covered from RFC 8728. Peter thinks he has done this, but we sought a second pair of eyes. Conveniently Russ volunteered.
The plan is for Peter to cut a next version of the draft in the next two weeks, after which Russ will perform his review.
The chair pointed out that the draft already contains the responsibilities of the RSAB. If people disagree with what is in the draft, they should be more specific.
The chair proposed to close the issue and there was no objection.
This is now also covered in Section 4.2.
The chair proposed to close this issue, and there were no objections.
There is now text in the draft in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. The chair proposed to close these issues, and there were no objections.
Issues 57, 61, and 62: How the RPC sets priorities / Work Programme
After a healthy discussion on list, the chair presented Jay's summary. There were small edits as follows:
externalities that affect the RPC
- the RPC is instructed by RFCs (not the RSAB/RSWG)
- the RPC is advised by the RSAB and has a duty to ask for that advice under specific circumstances
- the RPC is contractually overseen by the LLC to ensure that it delivers
- The RPC edits draft RFCs and publishes them.
- the RPC participates in the creation of new Editorial Stream RFCs that impact the RPC, at least in an advisory capacity
- the RPC provides reports to the community on its performance and plans
- the RPC consults with the community on its plans
- the RPC negotiates its resources with the LLC
There was general agreement to this text. One issue arose: who owns boiler plate.
Peter was requested to align the document to this text without substantial changes, after which we will call for consensus. Eliot will open a new issue to confirm boiler plate is handled as the group wishes.
Deferred as the person who raised the issue could not participate.
Deferred, as key participants were not present.
The remaining aspect of this issue is around what would happen if the RSWG/RSAB fail to function. What is the backstop.
Text needed. Mike St Johns proposed some text subsequently on list.
The chairs will put forth a doodle shortly.
There was no other business.