Subject: [Rfced-future] On Communities

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:33:58 -0500

Hi - We keep going down the community rathole and I'm starting to think 
its on purpose.  So I wrote a hierarchy of community describes our 
community(s) of interest, and how we might interact with them with 
respect to the changes in governance of the RFC Series system.    THIS 
is what I mean by broad community support.   It's at least the 
opportunity to know something is happening and getting non-parochial 
comments saying that what we're doing makes sense even to them.

WRT to the Internet:

People in the world are a superset of
    People affected by the Internet are a superset of
        People who use the Internet are a superset of
            People who operate the Internet are a superset of
                People who build the Internet are a superset of
                    People who design the Internet are a superset of
                        People who design the part of the Internet the 
IETF cares about* are a superset of
                            People who design the part of the Internet 
an IETF WG cares about* are a superset of
                                 People who work on the design of a 
particular protocol an IETF WG* works on.

* Neither of these should be taken to imply these folk all actually work 
with the IETF.    We write documents that reach up at least to the 
"operate" level, and sometime even to the "use" (User services area) and 
affected by (GAIA and HRPC for examples) levels.

There's a hierarchy of folk in the community, and the Internet community 
is large when measured by "affected by".   That said, the question is 
NOT "What is the community?", but rather how much of it we can and 
should reach out to during our processes.   The answer is: As broadly as 
we can, but not assuming that we're going to get 100s of 1000s of responses.

The concept of public notice and comment is long held, even within the 
IETF.  However, we tend to limit our notice and comment outreach to folk 
that have already bought into the IETF in some fashion -usually 
subscribing to a mailing list.  So a firm proposal.

1) We reach out to ICANN, ISOC and W3C (maybe others) and ask them to 
nominate a mailing list to which we can post our "Notice and Request for 
Public Comments" in addition to IETF/IAB centric mailing lists.   We go 
as broad as we can targeting communities that have at least heard of RFCs.

2) We create an email alias for the submission of said comments which 
does not require subscription.

3) We provide a repository for all received comments similar to 
https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment

4) We provide pointers to the RSWG and RSAB mailing lists, and we 
discuss the comments on those lists.  We invite commenters to 
subscribe.  We place resolutions on the public comment page.

5) We provide a shepherd's document that describes at the 100 foot level 
the changes in the RFC governance as part of the Notice and Comment process.

6) We make sure we inform the leadership of the various organizations 
that depend on RFCs of the existence of the Notice and Comment as they 
may want to take organization notice of our changes.

Proposed text for a public notice and comment email for this document:

The RFC Series has been the record publication of the Internet and 
Network programs and the Internet Architecture Board/Internet Activities 
Board since the beginning of the ARPANet experiments circa 1969.  Around 
1987 it became the record publication of the Internet Engineering Task 
Force and the place where IETF standards were published.  Over the years 
the governance of the series has moved from individuals (Steve Crocker 
and Jon Postel under contract to the USG) to organizations (USC/ISI 
under contract first to the USG and then to ISOC), to the ISOC as 
contract agent for the IAB and finally to the IETF LLC as the contract 
agent for the IAB.

The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has created a program (RFC Editor 
Futures) to consider changes to the governance of the RFC Series from an 
organizationally driven process to a volunteer-driven process similar to 
the model the IETF uses for standards creation.  The IAB would cede its 
current responsibilities to another organizational structure.  While 
this notice covers only the change in governance, if approved we expect 
further changes to the RFC Series system that may result in visible 
changes in how the RFC Series is used, or in the communities served by 
the RFC series.

The initial output of the RFCED Futures program is a document located 
at: <> and if approved will be the template for the governance changes.

The shepherd's document describing how the RFC Series system would 
change from the current model described in <> if this document is 
approved is at: <>

Comments may be sent to: <>

Comments will appear at <> and will be discussed on the RFCED Futures 
program mailing list at <>.  Resolutions of the comments will be posted 
back to the comments page.  You may subscribe for notification of 
comments and responses at <>. You may subscribed to participate in the 
discussion on the RFCED Futures mailing list at <>.

The comment period will close at <date time>.   Responses to the 
comments will be considered within 90 days after closure and posted to 
the comments page and an updated draft may be produced.   If necessary, 
the IAB will cause a additional rounds of notice and comment to occur.

Mike

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 12:45:43 -0600

I think this is a great basis for discussion of how to make community 
consultation tenable (I have nits, but specifically like the fact that 
this proposed process is concrete, well-defined, and time-bound under 
normal circumstances). I presume it has been posted at least partially 
in response to the recent exchanges I've had with Brian and Joel.

However: if we engage on this kind of proposal right now, we're jumping 
clean over the question of whether defining this process (and making it 
an RSWG prerequisite for series changes) is an rfced-future activity or 
an RSWG activity. As both a practical matter and a matter of principle, 
I think it's the latter.

/a

On 11/28/2021 12:33 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Hi - We keep going down the community rathole and I'm starting to 
> think its on purpose.  So I wrote a hierarchy of community describes 
> our community(s) of interest, and how we might interact with them with 
> * Neither of these should be taken to imply these folk all actually 
> work with the IETF.    We write documents that reach up at least to 
> the "operate" level, and sometime even to the "use" (User services 
> area) and affected by (GAIA and HRPC for examples) levels.
>
>
> There's a hierarchy of folk in the community, and the Internet 
> community is large when measured by "affected by".   That said, the 
> question is NOT "What is the community?", but rather how much of it we 
> can and should reach out to during our processes.   The answer is: As 
> broadly as we can, but not assuming that we're going to get 100s of 
> 1000s of responses.
>
> IETF.  However, we tend to limit our notice and comment outreach to 
> folk that have already bought into the IETF in some fashion -usually 
> nominate a mailing list to which we can post our "Notice and Request 
> for Public Comments" in addition to IETF/IAB centric mailing lists.   
> We go as broad as we can targeting communities that have at least 
> heard of RFCs.
>
> 5) We provide a shepherd's document that describes at the 100 foot 
> level the changes in the RFC governance as part of the Notice and 
> Comment process.
>
> Network programs and the Internet Architecture Board/Internet 
> Activities Board since the beginning of the ARPANet experiments circa 
> 1969.  Around 1987 it became the record publication of the Internet 
> Engineering Task Force and the place where IETF standards were 
> published.  Over the years the governance of the series has moved from 
> individuals (Steve Crocker and Jon Postel under contract to the USG) 
> to organizations (USC/ISI under contract first to the USG and then to 
> ISOC), to the ISOC as contract agent for the IAB and finally to the 
> IETF LLC as the contract agent for the IAB.
>
> The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has created a program (RFC 
> Editor Futures) to consider changes to the governance of the RFC 
> Series from an organizationally driven process to a volunteer-driven 
> process similar to the model the IETF uses for standards creation.  
> The IAB would cede its current responsibilities to another 
> organizational structure.  While this notice covers only the change in 
> governance, if approved we expect further changes to the RFC Series 
> system that may result in visible changes in how the RFC Series is 
> used, or in the communities served by the RFC series.
>
> program mailing list at <>.  Resolutions of the comments will be 
> posted back to the comments page.  You may subscribe for notification 
> of comments and responses at <>. You may subscribed to participate in 
> the discussion on the RFCED Futures mailing list at <>.
>
> the comments page and an updated draft may be produced.   If 
> necessary, the IAB will cause a additional rounds of notice and 
> comment to occur.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:52:18 -0500

On 11/28/2021 1:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> However: if we engage on this kind of proposal right now, we're 
> jumping clean over the question of whether defining this process (and 
> making it an RSWG prerequisite for series changes) is an rfced-future 
> activity or an RSWG activity. As both a practical matter and a matter 
> of principle, I think it's the latter.

I think we're all agreed that approval of this document will require 
sign off by the IAB, IESG,and LLC.  That won't change with this.  The 
intent is to give the deciders the broadest possible set of information 
on whether or not to proceed.

There's a second question as to whether or not the IAB,IESG,LLC will 
reserve to themselves the right to approve certain further changes to 
the RFC Series.  If they do, that approval process would be a similar 
model to the original document approval.

Mike

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 12:56:58 -0600

On 11/28/2021 12:52 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> consultation tenable (I have nits, but specifically like the fact 
>> that this proposed process is concrete, well-defined, and time-bound 
>> under normal circumstances). I presume it has been posted at least 
>> partially in response to the recent exchanges I've had with Brian and 
>> Joel.
>>
> intent is to give the deciders the broadest possible set of 
> information on whether or not to proceed.
>

Everything you say above seems correct to me, but I struggle to connect 
it to the question of whether defining the parameters around community 
consultation should be under the purview of rfced-future or of the RSWG.

/a