[rfc-i] [IAB] Comments on RSE models

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Jan 14 10:28:48 PST 2011


On 1/14/11 1:56 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>>> But if the RSE decides that this raises the larger question:  is
>>> it time to treat IDs as archival, since they functionally are
>>> archival within most meanings of the term?  In Paul's model, that
>>> question gets chewed over by the oversight committee and they
>>> decide whether to raise the question to the community.   In
>>> Glenn's model, the RSE brings it to the community directly and,
>>> for some value of the manages, manages the community toward
>>> consensus.
>>
>> To be more precise, in Paul's model the committee can decide to
>> bring the question to the community themselves, or they can tell
>> the RSE to do it for them. The committee is still responsible for
>> the final decision (and is thus responsible for listening to the
>> community's discussion), but they don't have to be the facilitator
>> of the discussion: they can use their RSE to do that.
>>
>> Thus, the parts of the two models visible to the community are
>> probably nearly identical; the difference is who is responsible for
>> acting after the discussion.
>>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> You have to explain what you mean with 'acting after the discussion'.
> Do you mean who is responsible for the 'act of determining the
> consensus'?

Yes. By "after the discussion", I meant "after the community has 
discussed the big question that was brought to it".

> Because after the consensus is called policy needs to be implemented
> and that is the responsibility of the RSE, agreed?

For some big questions that are answered, yes, but some of them will be 
implemented by the Production Center and/or the Publisher. For example, 
if the new community consensus is that in addition to the canonical text 
format, the RFC Editor web site must also have a non-canonical HTML 
version, it is not the RSE who implements this change: instead, the RSE 
verifies that the Publisher does so. (I think that is true in both 
Glenn's current model and my proposal, but Glenn can speak to his.) The 
RSE might have to implement changes to the web site to point to the new 
files, of course.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2011-January/002142.html
www.rfc-editor.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-18
5084
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:T7WOKGS6R2X2UBJP6DDXAUXG2G72MZ5U
<urn:uuid:647eed94-61d5-484d-ae7a-bfd3f2e6fe8e>
2015-04-19T19:07:48Z
4.31.198.49
sha1:O7KXAEPWYILUCWNQYUC33TWY3544YT5L
<urn:uuid:cefd0ed7-380a-4beb-b8e3-3fe1b74bb184>
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2011-January/002142.html
response
<urn:uuid:281950b2-1e01-4765-a63c-aa4fac572e45>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-235-10-82.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-18
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf