Subject: [Rfced-future] RPC liaison to the RSAB

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:31:34 +0100

Hi al,

I just recently noted this text and wanted to double-check it with the group:

”To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall include the IETF Executive Director or their delegate as a non-voting member since the IETF LLC is responsible for implementation of policies governing the RFC Series. The RSAB may at its discretion include additional non-voting members, for instance a liaison from the RPC."

This has a shall for the ED but only a may for the RPC. However, in many places we say that the RSAB is also an advisory body for the RPC and therefore I think it would actually be important to have an RPC liaison. 

Currently in our stream manager meetings with the RPC (which happen about 3 times a year), we usually have 2-3 people from the RPC and the RPC is organising the meeting and mostly sets the agenda. These meetings are seen as very valuable by the RPC and my current assumption was that those meetings would in future be part of the RSAB meetings. Therefore I believe it would be important to ensure that a) someone from the RPC is presented, b) multiple people from the RPC are be allowed to join and c) that the RPC is able to add item to the agenda. 

We don’t necessarily need to specify those details about the operation of the RSAB in this or any RFC, however, the “may” in the text above seems wrong or at least irritating to me. Should we change that?

Mirja

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:06:50 -0500

--On Friday, December 10, 2021 14:31 +0100 Mirja Kuehlewind
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB
> shall include the IETF Executive Director or their delegate as
> a non-voting member since the IETF LLC is responsible for
> implementation of policies governing the RFC Series. The RSAB
> may at its discretion include additional non-voting members,
> for instance a liaison from the RPC."
> 
> This has a shall for the ED but only a may for the RPC.
> However, in many places we say that the RSAB is also an
> advisory body for the RPC and therefore I think it would
> actually be important to have an RPC liaison. 
> 
> Currently in our stream manager meetings with the RPC (which
> happen about 3 times a year), we usually have 2-3 people from
> the RPC and the RPC is organising the meeting and mostly sets
> the agenda. These meetings are seen as very valuable by the
> RPC and my current assumption was that those meetings would in
> future be part of the RSAB meetings. Therefore I believe it
> would be important to ensure that a) someone from the RPC is
> presented, b) multiple people from the RPC are be allowed to
> join and c) that the RPC is able to add item to the agenda. 
> 
> We don't necessarily need to specify those details about the
> operation of the RSAB in this or any RFC, however, the
> "may" in the text above seems wrong or at least irritating
> to me. Should we change that?

FWIW, I agree with the analysis and believe the answer is "yes",
Not having the RPC present and represented by one of its senior
people, but rather relying on the ExecDir to represent them and
decide when and if they should be present might be reasonable
but would, IMO, turn the RSAB into more of an executive
oversight board than an advisory one charged with making more
detailed reviews of substantive matters about the Series.  I
don't think that is what we have been looking for.

   john

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:40:52 +0100

On 10.12.21 14:31, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>
> We don’t necessarily need to specify those details about the operation 
> of the RSAB in this or any RFC, however, the “may” in the text above 
> seems wrong or at least irritating to me. Should we change that?

The reason it's a "may" is to allow the RSAB to decide who they need as 
liaisons.  The RPC is listed as an example.  The RSAB may wish to 
establish *other* liaisons based on their needs. This was based on 
discussion that Lucy initiated some time ago.

But I would like to understand if you think the RSAB and members of the 
RPC cannot meet when they feel they need to.  I don't think that was the 
intent of the text or the group.

Eliot

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:08:50 -0500

--On Friday, December 10, 2021 17:40 +0100 Eliot Lear
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> We don't necessarily need to specify those details about
>> the operation  of the RSAB in this or any RFC, however, the
>> "may" in the text above  seems wrong or at least
>> irritating to me. Should we change that?
> 
> The reason it's a "may" is to allow the RSAB to decide who
> they need as liaisons.  The RPC is listed as an example. 
> The RSAB may wish to establish *other* liaisons based on their
> needs. This was based on discussion that Lucy initiated some
> time ago.
> 
> But I would like to understand if you think the RSAB and
> members of the RPC cannot meet when they feel they need to. 
> I don't think that was the intent of the text or the group.

Eliot,

Speaking only for myself...

I think there are two separate questions:

One is whether the RSAB should be able to decide who they need
or want as liaisons, whether they can invite the RPC (or, in the
appropriate season, Santa Claus) to meetings, etc.  I think the
answer to those questions is clearly "yes" and I'd be very
concerned if either (i) we needed to make a time-wasting formal
ritual a requirement for such interactions or (ii) anything
prevented RPC staff from reaching out informally and directly to
RSAB members or vice versa at any time and for any reason they
felt was appropriate.   To be clear, that should include not
barring someone saying "time for coffee" at someone's table if
and when we resume f2f meetings.

The other is whether the RSAB should be meeting without some
presence/ representation of the people who are actually doing
the day-to-day, down-in-the-trenches work.  In this new
structure, that means the RPC and, probably with the usual
exception for personnel matters, I think the answer is "no --
the RPC needs to be present".  If the reasons for that are not
clear, I remind people that the IAB (not just the RSOC)
excluding Heather from discussions and planning that clearly
involved the Series was a reason she cited as leading to her
decision to not seek contract renewal and hence leading us into
these discussions.  Perhaps more important, if we really want a
process of informed decision making by the community, leaving
the RPC out of RSAB discussions that might turn out to be
relevant puts us back on the path toward decisions being made
top-down and then perhaps allowing people to protest.

   john

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:27:41 +0100

Hi Eliot

Sorry I should have been clearer about what kind of change I had in mind.

Current the text says: shall have the ED as liaison, and my have others e.g. RPC

I think it should rather say: shall have ED and RPC and may have others

As you say below I also think the RSAB and RPC can meet how often they want and there is noting in the doc that would stop them. But having the shall there for the ED and only naming the RPC as an example of others seem to give the impressing that having a liaison to the RPC is less important. I don’t think that maps the relation between the RSAB and RPC as described in the rest of the document.

Mirja

> On 10. Dec 2021, at 17:40, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason it's a "may" is to allow the RSAB to decide who they need as liaisons.  The RPC is listed as an example.  The RSAB may wish to establish other liaisons based on their needs.  This was based on discussion that Lucy initiated some time ago.
> 
> But I would like to understand if you think the RSAB and members of the RPC cannot meet when they feel they need to.  I don't think that was the intent of the text or the group.
> 
> Eliot
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:05:47 -0500

On 12/10/2021 1:27 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> As you say below I also think the RSAB and RPC can meet how often they 
> want and there is noting in the doc that would stop them. But having 
> the shall there for the ED and only naming the RPC as an example of 
> others seem to give the impressing that having a liaison to the RPC is 
> less important. I don’t think that maps the relation between the RSAB 
> and RPC as described in the rest of the document.
>
> Mirja

Hi Mirja -

I agree with you that the RPC should be represented.  It probably can't 
be done directively here because of contracts. So "The ED shall be a 
liaison member of the RSAB.  The entity performing the tasks of the RPC 
may also appoint a liaison member to the RSAB. Liaisions may participate 
in all activities of the RSAB as non-voting members."  E.g. the choice 
is the RPC's not the RSAB's in this case.

Mike

>>> We don’t necessarily need to specify those details about the 
>>> operation of the RSAB in this or any RFC, however, the “may” in the 
>>> text above seems wrong or at least irritating to me. Should we 
>>> change that?
>>
>> The reason it's a "may" is to allow the RSAB to decide who they need 
>> as liaisons.  The RPC is listed as an example.  The RSAB may wish to 
>> But I would like to understand if you think the RSAB and members of 
>> the RPC cannot meet when they feel they need to.  I don't think that 
>> was the intent of the text or the group.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 09:05:10 +1300

>> As you say below I also think the RSAB and RPC can meet how often they 
want and there is noting in the doc that would stop them. But having the shall there for the ED and only naming the RPC as an example of others seem to give the impressing that having a liaison to the RPC is less important. I don’t think that maps the relation between the RSAB and RPC as described in the rest of the document.
>>
>> Mirja
> 
> 
> Hi Mirja -
> 
> I agree with you that the RPC should be represented.  It probably can't be done directively here because of contracts. So "The ED shall be a liaison member of the RSAB.  The entity performing the tasks of the RPC may also appoint a liaison member to the RSAB. Liaisions may participate in all activities of the RSAB as non-voting members."  E.g. the choice is the RPC's not the RSAB's in this case.

Exactly right. The RSAB should be obliged to listen to what the RPC has to say, if they wish to say anything.

     Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 10:00:26 +0100

Hi John,

> and when we resume f2f meetings.

Right.  Do you believe the current document says that?

> these discussions.

You are using two wrong analogies.  First, the RSCE is present on the 
RSAB as a voting member.  Second, the fundamental change of this 
document shifts an opaque process managed by the RSOC and IAB to a 
community-driven process in the RSWG, in which anyone – anyone – can 
participate.  That includes the RPC, to the limits of policies set by 
the LLC.  In fact, it would be very bad if the RPC didn't participate in 
the the RSWG, because they are the ones with the very expertise that you 
worry the community might lack.

Furthermore, if there is a formal liaison from the RPC, the ED in the 
end will have to decide who from the RPC should be that representative 
to the RSAB.  He already has the capability under the current text to 
bring the RPC in, and so does the RSAB.

And this was litigated, and now we are relitigating.

Eliot

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 12:52:25 +0100

Please see below.

> On 11. Dec 2021, at 10:00, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> You are using two wrong analogies.  First, the RSCE is present on the RSAB as a voting member.  Second, the fundamental change of this document shifts an opaque process managed by the RSOC and IAB to a community-driven process in the RSWG, in which anyone – anyone – can participate.  That includes the RPC, to the limits of policies set by the LLC.  In fact, it would be very bad if the RPC didn't participate in the the RSWG, because they are the ones with the very expertise that you worry the community might lack.

The RSE was present in RSOC and in the IAB (also the wording is a liaison from the RFC Editor function, so the RSE could probably also have named someone else), however, the RSCE is not a replace for the RSE. The RSE was kind of providing a bride between the RPC and the IAB/RSOC, however, as you also say I thought that one point of this is also to have the RPC more directly involved rather than taking this indirect route. Yes, they can participate in the RSWG of course but the discussion is about the role of the RPC in the RSAB and we also have this text in the draft:

”If issues arise with the implementation of particular policies, the RPC brings those issues to the RSAB, which interprets the policies and provides interim guidance to the RPC, informing the RSWG of those interpretations.”

and 

The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and has a duty to consult with them under specific circumstances, such as those relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC.

I was assuming that this consultation is best done by having a representative of the RPC in the RSAB meeting and on the RSAB mailing list. However, the text about liaison I cited in my initial email gives a different impression. 

If my assumption is wrong I think it would be helpful to clarify in the document how this consultation should work otherwise. However, if other people in this program also assume that the RPC would be present at meetings and the mailing list we should write that down. This part has cause uncertainty in the RPC about how the future process is supposed to work and that’s to me a sign that we are currently not clear enough about this in the document.

As a reference, the IESG charter has the follow sentence:

In addition, members of the IETF Secretariat are subscribed to the
   mailing list and present in the IESG meetings as needed in order to
   serve as a support function.

Actually maybe this is also something we should add regarding the secretariat. And a similar sentence about the RPC would do it for me as well, e.g.

Further, members of the RPC are subscribed to the
   mailing list and present in the IESG meetings as needed in order to
   facilitate expedited consultation.

Mirja

> 
> Furthermore, if there is a formal liaison from the RPC, the ED in the end will have to decide who from the RPC should be that representative to the RSAB.  He already has the capability under the current text to bring the RPC in, and so does the RSAB.
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 09:06:39 +1300

Comment below (and a possible new issue...)

On 12-Dec-21 00:52, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> Please see below.
> 
>> On 11. Dec 2021, at 10:00, Eliot Lear <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>>> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>>
>> You are using two wrong analogies.  First, the RSCE is present on 
the RSAB as a voting member.  Second, the fundamental change of this 
document shifts an opaque process managed by the RSOC and IAB to a community-driven process in the RSWG, in which anyone – anyone – 
can participate.  That includes the RPC, to the limits of policies set by the LLC.  In fact, it would be very bad if the RPC didn't participate in the the RSWG, because they are the ones with the very expertise that you worry the community might lack.
> The RPC is advised by the RSCE and RSAB, and has a duty to consult with 
them under specific circumstances, such as those relating to disagreements between authors and the RPC.
> If my assumption is wrong I think it would be helpful to clarify in the 
document how this consultation should work otherwise. However, if other people in this program also assume that the RPC would be present at meetings and the mailing list we should write that down. This part has cause uncertainty in the RPC about how the future process is supposed to work and 
that’s to me a sign that we are currently not clear enough about this in the document.
>     facilitate expedited consultation.

I think you mean "RSAB meetings". I don't like the word "meetings" anyway, because it's still my hope that the RSAB needs very few meetings and in 
general has very little work. (The work gets done in the working group.)

Also, I don't think the analogy with the Secretariat is correct. The Secretariat staff do what used to be called secretarial work for the IESG. (These days, for reasons that baffle me, it's considered more dignified to call it "admin".) The RPC staff don't work *for* the RSAB in any such way. There's no reason that all of them need to read RSAB email.

So I prefer yesterday's formulation of a direct RPC liaison to the RSAB. But then when I look at draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-06, I see that it's 
already covered, at the RSAB's discretion.

If you really want a new issue, here's one: As far as I can see, we don't 
specify whether the RSAB's mailing list does, or doesn't, have a public archive.

     Brian

> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Furthermore, if there is a formal liaison from the RPC, the ED in the end will have to decide who from the RPC should be that representative to 
the RSAB.  He already has the capability under the current text to bring the RPC in, and so does the RSAB.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:38:55 +0100

We need to decide what to do with this issue before we close the 
document.  As I've written, I don't think the text below is necessary or 
appropriate.  However, if we are to include it, there is another concern:

On 10.12.21 20:05, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> Hi Mirja -
>
> I agree with you that the RPC should be represented.  It probably 
> can't be done directively here because of contracts. So "The ED shall 
> be a liaison member of the RSAB.  The entity performing the tasks of 
> the RPC may also appoint a liaison member to the RSAB.  Liaisions may 
> participate in all activities of the RSAB as non-voting members."  
> E.g. the choice is the RPC's not the RSAB's in this case.
>
It is quite possible that the RSAB will be called upon to provide input 
on the performance of the RPC, the ED, a/o the LLC.  The penultimate 
sentence would make that input very difficult, and it may further 
conflict with conflict-of-interest policies of the LLC.  Jay may wish to 
correct me.

Eliot

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:57:52 +0100

Hi Brian, hi all,

Please see below (cutting down to the important parts only)

> On 11. Dec 2021, at 21:06, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I think you mean "RSAB meetings".

Yes, sorry, copy and paste error.

> I don't like the word "meetings" anyway, because it's still my hope that the RSAB needs very few meetings and in general has very little work. (The work gets done in the working group.)

Agreed.

> Also, I don't think the analogy with the Secretariat is correct. The Secretariat staff do what used to be called secretarial work for the IESG. (These days, for reasons that baffle me, it's conside…

I agree. I didn’t imply by using this reference that the RPC would work for the RSAB (and I don’t think that’s what the text says). I was only assuming that having them present and be able to access the mailing list would make life easy for everybody - both the RPC and the RSAB. But more importantly my intention was that there is no ambiguity for the RPC about what the RPC is allowed or not allowed to do when interacting with the RSAB but just exposing them to everything.

> 
> So I prefer yesterday's formulation of a direct RPC liaison to the RSAB. But then when I look at draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-06, I see that it's already covered, at the RSAB's discretion.

No sure what you refer to because the text from Mike only said that the RPC selects the liaison person but does not really say anything if there should be a liaison or not. I believe Mike's intention was to always have a liaison from the RPC. While currently the text says that the RSAB decides if there is one or not.

Having the RSAB decide if they need any liaisons seems generally right to me and this is also what we say for other boards (like the IESG or IAB). However then we also say that the ED “shall” be a liaison. I think making a stronger recommendation (namely shall) to have the ED as liaison seems correct to me. So I only wonder why we don’t have an equally strong recommendation for the RPC. That gives the impression that having a liaison to the RPC is less important. If that is what we actually want to say (even so I personally would disagree) that's fine. But if that’s not the message we want to give we should change that.

In your reply to Mike you said:

"Exactly right. The RSAB should be obliged to listen to what the RPC has to say, if they wish to say anything.”

That’s exactly the point I would like to clarify. Maybe my text proposal doesn’t capture that appropriately. However, actually I think Mike’s doesn’t do that either (given it’s still optional o have a liaison from the RPC).

Mirja

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:58 -0500

On 12/15/2021 5:38 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> document. As I've written, I don't think the text below is necessary 
> or appropriate.  However, if we are to include it, there is another 
> concern:
>
> It is quite possible that the RSAB will be called upon to provide 
> input on the performance of the RPC, the ED, a/o the LLC.  The 
> penultimate sentence would make that input very difficult, and it may 
> further conflict with conflict-of-interest policies of the LLC.  Jay 
> may wish to correct me.
>
> Eliot

No.  Individual members of the RSAB/RSWG may be asked for their input on 
how the various contractors perform and may reply, as with any member of 
the community in good standing.  Neither the RSAB nor the RSWG shall 
give or offer to give a coordinated statement or evaluation.  I'm pretty 
sure we've already indicated that the RSAB has no personnel 
responsibilities.  With the exception of the initial appointment of the 
RSCE, there should be no personnel actions of any interest to the RSAB 
and even those can  be handled as individual queries.  E.g., there 
should be no reason for the RSAB to have any '"Executive Sessions".

With respect to Mirja and Peter's comments - for clarity then:

"The ED shall be a liaison member of the RSAB.  The entity performing 
the tasks of the RPC may also appoint a liaison member to the RSAB.  
Liaisions may participate in all activities of the RSAB as non-voting 
members.   The RSAB may approve additional liaison positions as it deems 
fit."

Subnote:  "While the RSAB meetings shall be open to any and all 
observers, the actual discussions shall be limited to the RSAB members 
and the liaisons except during designated public discussions times which 
shall be held at the discretion of the RSAB".   - To clarify the 
difference between a liaison and a random person listening in.

Use the above and eliminate any other text about the RSAB approving 
liaison's.

Mirja/Peter - "shall be a liaison" is directive here and requires the ED 
to participate.  "RPC may appoint..." is permissive and allows the RPC 
to appoint whoever they want as a liaison including no one.  It may 
conflict with other text, but the normal rules of construction are that 
the specific (e.g. applying to the RPC) override the general (the RSAB 
selects liaisons).  Having the ED select a liaison from the RPC isn't 
normally in keeping with the way contracts work.    The RPC will be the 
best judge of who should represent them in RSAB matters.

Mike

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:52:22 +0100

Mike:

On 15.12.21 19:31, Michael StJohns wrote:
> No. Individual members of the RSAB/RSWG may be asked for their input 
> on how the various contractors perform and may reply, as with any 
> member of the community in good standing.  Neither the RSAB nor the 
> RSWG shall give or offer to give a coordinated statement or 
> evaluation.  I'm pretty sure we've already indicated that the RSAB has 
> no personnel responsibilities.

That's incorrect:

    Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE,
    including a call for confidential input from the community.  The IETF
    LLC will produce a draft evaluation of the RSCE's performance for
    review by RSAB members other than the RSCE, who will provide feedback
    to the IETF LLC.

And the group did negotiate at some length on that text.  We don't have 
such text for the RPC, but that's because the LLC has an existing 
process for the RPC.  Now we may have an inconsistency in the text about 
open meeting matters.

Eliot

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:14:27 -0800

> should be no reason for the RSAB to have any '"Executive Sessions".

I don't agree with this. It seems entirely appropriate for the RSAB to give
input as a group (perhaps minus the RSCE if the input is on the RSCE).

I would note that the draft has had text allowing RSAB executive sessions
for some time, so changing that seems like it would require some consensus
to change.

> the tasks of the RPC may also appoint a liaison member to the RSAB.

See below.

> members.

I don't in fact think this is the right text and it's not usually how we
handle liaisons. Rather the, RSAB should (without the liaison)
determine the nature of the liaison's participation.

>   The RSAB may approve additional liaison positions as it deems
> fit."
>

This seems fine.

> difference between a liaison and a random person listening in.

This also seems fine.

> to participate.

I don't think we should require that.

"RPC may appoint..." is permissive and allows the RPC
> best judge of who should represent them in RSAB matters.

Given the ED's overall responsibilities here, I think having the ED formally
approve the liaison -- on the recommendation of the RPC perhaps -- makes
more sense.

-Ekr

> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:20:56 +1300

> On 15/12/2021, at 11:57 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian, hi all,
> 

This is not about importance, it is about the different roles, and trying to find an equivalence between different liaisons where none exists is the wrong way to design a group.  The reasons for the RPC being a mandatory liaison should standalone.

The reason for the ED  being a mandatory liaison are well documented - In July in response to community comments, Peter originally proposed text that allowed the RSAB to optionally appoint both the ED and an RPC [1] and different text that mandated the ED but not the RPC [2].  I had previously made the case [3] for a mandatory LLC liaison -  "necessary for the LLC in its role of setting the performance targets for the RPC and negotiating the work plan budget/timetables", which was generally accepted.

When it comes to the RPC being a liaison to RSAB, then the situation is much more complex than it is for the ED.  In particular the RSAB needs to reconcile the following:

- how to manage the RPC input/engagement when discussing the priorities and performance of the RPC
- how to manage responding to RPC requests for advice
- how to manage any conflicting advice from the RSCE and the RPC

None of these are insurmountable, but I would hope that any proposal for the RPC being a mandatory liaison addresses those issues as not doing that puts the RSAB on a difficult footing from the start.

Jay

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/0dzrlliAktfbWZro1HKscIAekOo/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/tf9lkn4bdt1uPPns-1OgeUwxWpE/
[3]  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/Ld6eMPFj29KlA5AR4bRRY6zAjKI/

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:23:55 -0500

> On Dec 15, 2021, at 2:14 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>  

We have many situations where liaisons are full participants in the discussion, but then cannot vote.  Further, some groups may want to give their liaison instructions that limit the ways that the liaison can participate.

Russ

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:28:50 -0800

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:23 PM Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We have many situations where liaisons are full participants in the
> discussion, but then cannot vote.
>

Correct, but it's at the discretion of the receiving organization.

>  Further, some groups may want to give their liaison instructions that
> limit the ways that the liaison can participate.
>

Sure. And if they want less participation, that's their right. But I think
the outer limits should be set by the RSAB.

-Ekr

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:48:44 -0500

On 12/15/2021 1:52 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> evaluation.  I'm pretty sure we've already indicated that the RSAB 
>> has no personnel responsibilities.
>
> That's incorrect:
>
> And the group did negotiate at some length on that text.  We don't 
> have such text for the RPC, but that's because the LLC has an existing 
> process for the RPC.  Now we may have an inconsistency in the text 
> about open meeting matters.
>
> Eliot
>
Hi Eliot -

That text predates this text AFAICT:

>     The appointing bodies, i.e., the stream approval bodies (IESG, IAB,
>     IRTF chair, ISE), shall determine their own processes for appointing
>     RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE are described
>     under Section 5).  Each appointing body shall have the power to
>     remove its appointed RSAB member at its discretion at any time.
>     Appointing bodies should ensure that voting members are seated at all
>     times and should fill any vacancies with all due speed, if necessary
>     on a temporary basis.

The gist of that second text is that a) the member appointed to the RSAB 
does not have to originate from the appointing organization, and b) a 
member on the RSAB at the time of the request for review is not 
necessarily the one that has been working with the RSCE over the last 
few years or so and may have little if anything useful to say, and c) 
this still  has the potential for having the RSAB think they are 
managing the RSCE.

In this read through I've been looking at synergistic implications of 
how the various clauses interact.     While I agree that the text you 
cited exists, I suggest it is the wrong text given the text I cited.  
Basically, the LLC should feel free to reach out to the actual 
individuals that have experience with the RSCE  for a personal 
evaluation rather than giving the RSAB more pseudo-authority with 
respect to the RSCE.

I can see no real reason for the RSAB to meet in executive session with 
the sole exception of discussing with the ED various candidates for the 
RSCE job and even then I'm not sure that's a good idea.  Instead, the 
LLC could adopt the current members of the RSAB onto the selection board 
and set their own processes that way.

Finally, if there is a possibility of executive sessions, how broadly 
can information from an executive session be shared?  Can the non-IESG 
member appointed by the IESG share discussions with the IESG?  On what 
topics?  If a member is replaced mid-executive-discussion, what 
happens?  Can the RSAB emit a response to the LLC's queries if it is 
incomplete?  Does the LLC have to wait until the RSAB is reconstituted 
(member replaced) to get a response to its queries?  E.g. is the 
evaluation document a "policy document"?  Etc, etc, etc.  Let's simplify 
this and just keep all of the RSAB stuff in the light.

And rather than reply to EKR's notes let me say here that letting the 
RSAB have the choice of ignoring the RPC or only sometime have them as a 
liaison based on how 3 of the RSAB are feeling that day seems to be 
shooting ourselves in the foot.   The RPC should be able to have a 
liaison on the RSAB for some of the same reasons that we've specified 
that the ED is a liaison.  To paraphrase:

    To ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall
        include the s/IETF Executive Director or their delegate/a person appointed by the RPC/ as a non-voting
        member, because the s/IETF LLC/RPC/ is responsible for s/implementation of
        policies governing the RFC Series/publication of the RFC series and implementation of processes specified under the scheme defined herein/

Later, Mike

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:37:32 -0700

On 12/11/21 1:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> If you really want a new issue, here's one: As far as I can see, we 
> don't specify whether the RSAB's mailing list does, or doesn't, have a 
> public archive.

Filed as #143:

https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/143

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:48:30 -0700

> is the RPC's not the RSAB's in this case.

Although as the document editor I'll add whatever text we agree on, this 
seems backward: RSAB should be the entity that initiates liaison 
arrangements, and we've had text to that effect for a long time now.

Peter

---

From: "StJohns, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:00:41 -0500

> arrangements, and we've had text to that effect for a long time now.

Hi Peter - your argument seems to reduce to “because we call this a liaison
then we should let the RSAB decide. “

Instead maybe fill in: There exist specific situations where not having the
RPC participate on the RSAB makes sense for the success of the system, so
we should let the RSAB decide when and when not to let the RPC
participate.  Those situations are: ???

I’ve been unable to think of any such situations.  Maybe you’ve got another
perception?

Mike

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:08:22 -0700

On 12/15/21 5:00 PM, StJohns, Michael wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 18:48 Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     can't
> Hi Peter - your argument seems to reduce to “because we call this a 
> liaison then we should let the RSAB decide. “
> 
> Instead maybe fill in: There exist specific situations where not having 
> the RPC participate on the RSAB makes sense for the success of the 
> system, so we should let the RSAB decide when and when not to let the 
> RPC participate.  Those situations are: ???
> 
> I’ve been unable to think of any such situations.  Maybe you’ve got 
> another perception?

It just seems strange to me that any arbitrary entity can proactively 
appoint a liaison to the RSAB and expect to have a seat at the table. 
Can, say, ISOC or ICANN or ISO or W3C or NIST or 3GPP or IFPSM [1] do 
that, too? (After all, one could argue that they and many others all 
have a "stake" in the RFC Series.)

Peter

[1] https://www.ifpsm.org/ifpsm

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:16:41 -0700

Thanks, Jay, this is helpful. Although I don't have position on this 
matter, see below for a few observations.

On 12/15/21 12:20 PM, Jay Daley wrote:

> - how to manage any conflicting advice from the RSCE and the RPC >

It strikes me that there are several aspects here.

1. Direct conversation between RSAB members and a representative from 
the RPC could be helpful in working through the topics you've enumerated.

2. The fact that such conversations could be helpful doesn't require us 
to legislate an RPC liaison in this document, since RSAB would be free 
to establish it on their own.

3. If there is a liaison from RPC to the RSAB (whether we legislate it 
now or the RSAB establishes it on its own initiative), the RSAB could 
discuss any matters it deems sensitive in executive session or the 
equivalent.

4. Reading between the lines, I hear a concern that RSAB as a body might 
need to formulate an RSAB "position" before engaging with the RPC on 
some of these topics. That feels like a more formal interaction model 
than might be necessary.

Peter

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:17:23 -0800

As I said earlier, it seems to me that there is quite a bit of daylight
between "org X can appoint a liaison to org Y" and "that liaison
is part of org Y", so I think the default ought to be quite the opposite of
what Mike suggests, namely:

- The LLC ED is a non-voting member of the RSAB
- The RSAB can allow other non-voting members at its discretion
(This is what it currently says)

If we must say anything about the RPC beyond the example, it ought to say
that the RPC shall appoint a liaison but that the manner of the liaison's
participation is up to the RSAB.

-Ekr

---

From: "StJohns, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:25:26 -0500

> [1] https://www.ifpsm.org/ifpsm

How the heck did you get from my “have the RPC participate as a matter of
course” to  your “any TD&H may become a liaison without the RSAB signing
off”?

Mike

<https://www.ifpsm.org/ifpsm>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:32:21 -0700

On 12/15/21 6:25 PM, StJohns, Michael wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 19:08 Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked] 
>      > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 18:48 Peter Saint-Andre
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>      > <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >      > On 12/10/2021 1:27 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>      >      >> Hi Eliot
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Sorry I should have been clearer about what kind of
>     change I had
>      >     in mind.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Current the text says: shall have the ED as liaison, and
>     my have
>      >      >> others e.g. RPC
>      >      >>
>      >      >> I think it should rather say: shall have ED and RPC and
>     may have
>      >     others
>      >      >>
>      >      >> As you say below I also think the RSAB and RPC can meet how
>      >     often they
>      >      >> want and there is noting in the doc that would stop them. But
>      >     having
>      >      >> the shall there for the ED and only naming the RPC as an
>     example of
>      >      >> others seem to give the impressing that having a liaison
>     to the
>      >     RPC is
>      >      >> less important. I don’t think that maps the relation
>     between the
>      >     RSAB
>      >      >> and RPC as described in the rest of the document.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Mirja
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > Hi Mirja -
>      >      >
>      >      > I agree with you that the RPC should be represented.  It
>     probably
>      >     can't
>      >      > be done directively here because of contracts. So "The ED
>     shall be a
>      >      > liaison member of the RSAB.  The entity performing the
>     tasks of
>      >     the RPC
>      >      > may also appoint a liaison member to the RSAB. Liaisions may
>      >     participate
>      >      > in all activities of the RSAB as non-voting members." 
>     E.g. the
>      >     choice
>      >      > is the RPC's not the RSAB's in this case.
>      >
>      >     Although as the document editor I'll add whatever text we
>     agree on,
>      >     this
>     [1] https://www.ifpsm.org/ifpsm <https://www.ifpsm.org/ifpsm>
> 
> 
> How the heck did you get from my “have the RPC participate as a matter 
> of course” to  your “any TD&H may become a liaison without the RSAB 
> signing off”?

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement of yours:

"The entity performing the tasks of the RPC may also appoint a liaison 
member to the RSAB."

What exactly does it mean to appoint a liaison member to the RSAB (or 
any other group)? Such a liaison relationship needs to be mutual, which 
means it needs to be accepted by the group to which the liaison is 
named, in this case the RSAB. The RPC can't just appoint a liaison on 
its own.

Peter

---

From: "StJohns, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19:54 -0500

Yes I did.  Oops.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 21:10
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] RPC liaison to the RSAB
To: StJohns, Michael <[email-masked]>

Thanks for clarifying! (Not sure if you meant to send this to the list.)

On 12/15/21 7:02 PM, StJohns, Michael wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 20:32 Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]
>      > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 19:08 Peter Saint-Andre
>     <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>      >      > <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>>> wrote:
>      >      >
>      >      >      >> Sorry I should have been clearer about what kind of
>      >     change I had
>      >      >     in mind.
>      >      >      >>
>      >      >      >> Current the text says: shall have the ED as
>     liaison, and
>      >     my have
>      >      >      >> others e.g. RPC
>      >      >      >>
>      >      >      >> I think it should rather say: shall have ED and
>     RPC and
>      >     may have
>      >      >     others
>      >      >      >>
>      >      >      >> As you say below I also think the RSAB and RPC can
>     meet how
>      >      >     often they
>      >      >      >> want and there is noting in the doc that would
>     stop them. But
>      >      >     having
>      >      >      >> the shall there for the ED and only naming the RPC
>     as an
>      >     example of
>      >      >      >> others seem to give the impressing that having a
>     liaison
>      >     to the
>      >      >     RPC is
>      >      >      >> less important. I don’t think that maps the relation
>      >     between the
>      >      >     RSAB
>      >      >      > I agree with you that the RPC should be
>     represented.  It
>      >     probably
>      >      >     can't
>      >      >      > be done directively here because of contracts. So
>     "The ED
>      >     shall be a
>      >      >      > liaison member of the RSAB.  The entity performing
the
>      >     tasks of
>      >      >     the RPC
>      >      >      > may also appoint a liaison member to the RSAB.
>     Liaisions may
>      >      >     participate
>      >      >      > in all activities of the RSAB as non-voting members."
>      >     E.g. the
>      >      >     choice
>      >      >     arrangements, and we've had text to that effect for a
long
>      >     time now.
>      >      > Instead maybe fill in: There exist specific situations
>     where not
>      >     having
>      >      > system, so we should let the RSAB decide when and when not
>     to let
>      >     the
>     <https://www.ifpsm.org/ifpsm <https://www.ifpsm.org/ifpsm>>
>      >
>      >
> I’ve explained this like 4 times but let’s try it again.
>
> Liaison appears to be the trigger word, but what I mean - whatever word
> you want to use - basically the same type of position that the ED would
> have in the RSAB - a non-voting but speaking position (e.g not an
> observer role, but a participant). As I explained before, the RPC gets
> to choose who represents them, this is not a person selected by the ED.
>
> And organizations appoint liaisons all the time.  In fact I’ll bet you
> could find dozens of messages where the IAB appoints someone as liaison
> to another organization.  The fact that there will be a “liaison” is
> either subject to negotiation after the organization is created, or is
> specified in the documents that create the organization - e.g. like the
> host of liaisons that are part of the population of the Nomcom for
example.
>
> The final point is that the sending organization selects their
> representative, not the gaining organization.
>
> So all we’re arguing about here is whether or not the RPC always gets a
> seat at the table, or whether that’s subject to the whims of the then
> current RSAB.  There’s precedence ( e.g. Nomcom) in specifying a
> requirement here rather than deferring to an ever changing group of
> people with their own set of biases.
>
> Later, Mike
>
>
>
>
>     Peter
>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:35:28 -0800

> > people with their own set of biases.
I'm not sure that this precedent cuts the way you seem to believe. As I
understand
it, nomcoms have varied quite a bit in the level of participation.

-Ekr

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:57:20 +1300

The draft says:

The RSAB may at its discretion include additional non-voting members, for instance a liaison from the RPC.

Ain't broken, don't fix.

Regards
    Brian C

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 22:20:22 -0500

--On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 18:32 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>>     It just seems strange to me that any arbitrary entity can
>>     proactively appoint a liaison to the RSAB and expect to
>>     have a seat at the table. Can, say, ISOC or ICANN or ISO
>>     or W3C or NIST or 3GPP or IFPSM [1] do that, too? (After
>>     all, one could argue that they and many others all have a
>>     "stake" in the RFC Series.)
>> 
>>     Peter
>> 
>> How the heck did you get from my "have the RPC participate
>> as a matter  of course" to  your "any TD&H may become a
>> liaison without the RSAB  signing off"?
> 
> "The entity performing the tasks of the RPC may also appoint a
> liaison member to the RSAB."
> 
> What exactly does it mean to appoint a liaison member to the
> RSAB (or any other group)? Such a liaison relationship needs
> to be mutual, which means it needs to be accepted by the group
> to which the liaison is named, in this case the RSAB. The RPC
> can't just appoint a liaison on its own.

Peter,

I've been trying to sit this one out since my initial comments,
but I guess I'm failing.  Not speaking for Mike or anyone else...

The difficulty with roles we have traditionally called "liaison"
is not only the kind of two-way situation you describe but that
the body to which they are appointed or designated can,
traditionally, decide that they should be excluded from
discussions.  Sometimes we restrict that exclusion by requiring
that a reason be given and that the fall into some specific
category, sometimes we don't.

Independent of what it is called, I think the RPC needs to have
a seat at the RSAB table and have it as part of the model.  That
seat should not be discretionary.  I suspect that a mechanism
will be needed to allow some or all of the RSAB members to
decide the RPC should be locked out of a discussion, but the
mechanism should be constrained and the information that is
being done and the reasons should be public.

In particular, I am not talking about (and don't believe Mike,
Mirja, or others are talking about) a role that "needs to be
accepted by the group to which the liaison is named, in this
case the RSAB" for the RPC any more than I think that definition
would be appropriate for the LLC ED.

Probably "liaison" is, as you, Mike, and others have sort of
suggested, the wrong term for what is intended by this.  If I
correctly understand what at least some of us have intended,
"ex-officio" would be closer to the usual usage for both the LLC
ED and RPC representations.   Apparently that term has not been
used in the document so might be used (with "non-voting" if
appropriate) for these two positions, thereby distinguishing
them from "liaisons" who the RSAB would need to invite and/or
accept.

And that brings me to...

--On Thursday, December 16, 2021 08:20 +1300 Jay Daley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> When it comes to the RPC being a liaison to RSAB, then the
> situation is much more complex than it is for the ED.  In
> particular the RSAB needs to reconcile the following:
> 
> None of these are insurmountable, but I would hope that any
> proposal for the RPC being a mandatory liaison addresses those
> issues as not doing that puts the RSAB on a difficult footing
> from the start.

Agreed.  But I don't think that any of the above are hard.  I
still believe that the model we are specifying will work to
produce the RFC Series we want only if things can proceed
collegially, with people having open discussions, sharing
perspectives and opinions openly.  If the RSAB needs to go into
some type of  executive session to make certain decisions with
some or all the ex-officio members (and/or liaisons) excluded,
then so be it, but I would hope that:

 -- The RPC would participate in discussions about their
priorities and performance.  If needed, that would be far more
likely to result in incremental adjustments or corrections
rather than discussions about the detailed provisions of
contracts or something needing to assert authority.
 -- The RPC should be present for discussions about their
requests for advice.  Perhaps they would have nothing to say,
but that is not an issue.  If the requests or associated issues
are not correctly interpreted, then having them present to
clarify would save time and improve results.  Maybe I'm missing
something, but I can see no scenario in which excluding them
from such discussions would make the quality of RSAB decisions,
the Series, or the Internet better.
  -- If the RPC and RSCE have conflicting advice, I believe that
having them discuss their different advice and perspectives with
each other and with the RSAB would be in the best interests of
all concerned.  Certainly, I'd hope nothing would bar them from
having private discussions to clarify (even if not resolve)
conflicting positions.  That would almost certainly be in
everyone's interest, but I see no reason for the document to
need to say that unless there are provisions that someone could
interpret as getting in the way (I haven't found any).

Where I (very slightly) might disagree with Jay is that I don't
see that situation as being much more complex than the one with
the ED.  For example, if the ED has advice about funding limits
or the LLC Board were to ask the RSAB (either as a separate
entity or as part of a more general query to the community) for
an evaluation of the performance of the ED, the same issues
would arise.  I'd hope the RSAB would be able to turn such
advice or requests into discussions of tradeoffs or of strengths
and weaknesses.  If a final decision required an executive
session with the ED excluded, so be it.  So no so different from
the above.

best,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 22:40:11 -0500

--On Thursday, December 16, 2021 15:57 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The draft says:
> 
> The RSAB may at its discretion include additional non-voting
> members, for instance a liaison from the RPC.
> 
> Ain't broken, don't fix.

Is broken.  Allows the RSAB to exclude a critical perspective
and voice with expertise that might otherwise not be available.
For the RPC case, I don't think that is wise or appropriate.

See note sent a few minutes ago.

   john

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 04:51:01 +0100

Mike:

On 15.12.21 22:48, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> I can see no real reason for the RSAB to meet in executive session 
> with the sole exception of discussing with the ED various candidates 
> for the RSCE job and even then I'm not sure that's a good idea.  
> Instead, the LLC could adopt the current members of the RSAB onto the 
> selection board and set their own processes that way.
>
We are now relitigating text that was carefully agreed.  I mentioned the 
text as an example, and not to open it up for revision.  Its agreed 
purpose to moderate comments to protect the RSCE, based on an issue you 
opened.  It is not at all related to the selection method of the RSAB, 
and it is not feasible for individuals to do the vetting.

Rather than relitigate that issue, which I urge us not us not to do, if 
there is to be a liaison from the RPC, it should simply not participate 
in matters involving the evaluation of its performance.  Keep this in 
mind: nearly all decisions of the RSAB are ratifications or rejections 
of the work of the RSWG.  As I wrote earlier, the RPC should be 
informing that effort.

Eliot

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:51:54 -0700

Thanks, John. I think you're on the right track but I need to think 
about it properly before replying (which I didn't do in my recent 
responses to Mike - sorry about that).

Peter

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:15:00 +0100

I think people are misunderstanding the nature of the RSAB and the very 
model we are creating.

The RSAB has precisely four jobs:

 1. Approve or disapprove RSWG work,
 2. Provide guidance to the RPC regarding certain inter-stream conflicts,
 3. Provide an opinion regarding feedback on the RSCE to the LLC, and
 4. Address certain appeals.

That's it.

In each case, one should ask what benefit a formal liaison brings, or 
what risk the formal liaison mitigates, and what complications a formal 
liaison brings.

It's important to note that disputes and appeals are expected to be 
corner cases.  We should be careful about how we legislate them.  
Principally, the work that needs to get done on policy development is 
meant to happen in the RSWG.  That is where the focus of interaction 
should be.

So.  I will ask advocates of an RPC liaison role to state clearly what 
risk they are intending to mitigate.

A risk that we cannot mitigate are any limitations the ED or LLC may 
place on participation as a matter of LLC policy or contract. Please 
don't argue that point here since there's nothing this group can or 
should do about that (any issues with that need to be brought to the LLC).

Eliot

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 14:23:16 -0500

On 12/15/2021 9:35 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I'm not sure that this precedent cuts the way you seem to believe. As 
> I understand

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.   If you're saying 
that sometimes some of the organizations permitted liaisons failed to 
send them, then sure, but that's the choice of the sending organization 
and doesn't undercut what I'm saying and in fact exactly mirrors what I 
said about the RPC choosing its representative or none at all.  If 
you're saying that a given Nomcom declined to seat a liaison from an 
organization that was allowed one by the current Nomcom procedures RFC - 
it never happened AFAICT.

Or something else?  And exactly how does it undercut what I've said?

Later, Mike

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 14:50:05 -0500

Top posting because.

Eliot - Generally the role of the chair is to elicit both points and 
rationales and engender a discussion, not to pick one point as the true 
answer and require the other side to attack it.

In this case, I think there's substantial commentary on why the RPC 
should have a seat at the table.  And little commentary on not beside 
"let the RSAB decide".

For your points below:

1) If the RSWG is proposing something that will impact the RPC's work, 
work flow, LOE, costs, SLA etc, having the RPC be able to explain 
exactly what will need to change to support the proposal, and explaining 
what could be moved around to make things work seems to be a useful 
input into whether the RSAB approves a document or returns it with 
comments to the RSWG.   Given that pretty much any document that 
describes functional albeit strategic changes will involve the RPC and 
that I would be surprised if there are many non-functional (changes not 
affecting function) proposed by the RSWG, it just makes sense that the 
RPC be included.  Filtering all that through the ED is not a) scalable 
(how much more gets piled on to Jay or his successor?), b) efficient 
(e.g. a pre-meeting with the ED and the RPC to prepare the ED for the 
RSAB meeting), c) error-free (think the game of "Telephone").  In fact 
having both the ED and the RPC there may mean that small tweaks can be 
approved quickly as both sides of the contract would be represented.

2) This one seems obvious - the RPC brings things to the RSAB for 
discussion.  Having a seat at the table to add things to the agenda vs 
being summoned at the whim of the RSAB - the equities argue for the 
former. I actually expect that most meetings (based on the RSOC's 
minutes) will involve RPC discussions of some sort under this heading.

3) I need to get back to your other email on this point, but I'm 
becoming more and more convinced that the RSAB as a group should not be 
holding executive sessions for any reason.  This task for the RSAB only 
really makes sense if all of the RSAB members excluding the RSCE were 
from their appointing organizations and were long-lived in the job - and 
neither of these appear to be guaranteed to be true.  In any event the 
presence of this task neither argues for or against non-voting 
ex-officio members.

4) The ED doesn't have a role in the appeals process, but is still 
included as ex-officio so the presence of this task neither argues for 
or against having the RPC having an ex-officio member.  It's possible 
that both the ED and the RPC might have useful input into a given appeal 
which might be missed if either is excluded from the discussions.

I look forward to the opponents of the RPC being ex-officio providing 
related commentary - e.g.  a) why should a random membership of the RSAB 
decide whether the RPC relationship is ex-officio or something else? b) 
how often should they decide this (e.g. everytime a member changes out?  
each meeting? each year? never?), c) what is the difference between an 
ex-officio member and one that gets invited to every meeting (e.g. is 
the difference that the RPC by rule sits mute until asked about 
something?  Should that rule apply to the ED as well? If not, why not?)

Mike

On 12/16/2021 3:15 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> I think people are misunderstanding the nature of the RSAB and the 
> very model we are creating.
>
> what risk the formal liaison mitigates, and what complications a 
> formal liaison brings.
>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:01:07 -0800

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:23 AM Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> that sometimes some of the organizations permitted liaisons failed to send
> them, then sure, but that's the choice of the sending organization and
> doesn't undercut what I'm saying and in fact exactly mirrors what I said
> about the RPC choosing its representative or none at all.  If you're saying
> that a given Nomcom declined to seat a liaison from an organization that
> was allowed one by the current Nomcom procedures RFC - it never happened
> AFAICT.
>
I'm saying that the nomcom sets the terms under which the liaisons
participate, and that in some cases it's a lot and in some cases it's much
less. Which is precisely what I'm advocating for here, rather than
prescribing the manner in which the liaison engages.

-Ekr

Later, Mike

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:14:06 -0500

On 12/16/2021 3:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:23 AM Michael StJohns 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>     I'm not sure that this precedent cuts the way you seem to
>>     believe. As I understand
>     I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here. If you're
>     saying that sometimes some of the organizations permitted liaisons
>     failed to send them, then sure, but that's the choice of the
>     sending organization and doesn't undercut what I'm saying and in
>     fact exactly mirrors what I said about the RPC choosing its
>     representative or none at all.  If you're saying that a given
>     Nomcom declined to seat a liaison from an organization that was
>     allowed one by the current Nomcom procedures RFC - it never
>     happened AFAICT.
>
> participate, and that in some cases it's a lot and in some cases it's 
> much less. Which is precisely what I'm advocating for here, rather 
> than prescribing the manner in which the liaison engages.
>
> -Ekr
>

Um.   See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8713 section 4.7 
which specifies the roles and responsibilities of a Nomcom liaison and 
those are not subject to constraint by the Nomcom on which they serve.

> Liaisons may have other nominating committee responsibilities as
>     required by their respective organizations or requested by the
>     nominating committee, except that such responsibilities may not
>     conflict with any other provisions of this document.

It's possible you're referring to the above paragraph, but that's "other 
duties as assigned" rather than "you can't participate in the 
discussions".  AFAICT section 4.7 was last updated in 2015 and before 
that was mostly the same but scattered throughout the document.  The 
main operative change here was to make the appointment of the ISOC 
liaison optional in both reality and as written.

And there's section 4.3 which has:

The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of
    candidates.  They do vote on all other issues before the committee
    unless otherwise specified in this document.

So I believe you are incorrect in all aspects here.

Mike

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:24:09 -0800

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 12:14 PM Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> discussions".  AFAICT section 4.7 was last updated in 2015 and before that
> was mostly the same but scattered throughout the document.  The main
> operative change here was to make the appointment of the ISOC liaison
> optional in both reality and as written.
>

I don't see anything here that says that the liaisons are allowed to
participate fully in the discussion. Do you have some more on point text?

>    unless otherwise specified in this document.
Voting on all other issues is not the same as participating fully in the
discussion.

-Ekr

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:30:37 +1300

> On 17/12/2021, at 8:50 AM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Top posting because.
> 
> Eliot - Generally the role of the chair is to elicit both points and rationales and engender a discussion, not to pick one point as the true answer and require the other side to attack it.
> 
> In this case, I think there's substantial commentary on why the RPC should have a seat at the table.  And little commentary on not beside "let the RSAB decide".
> 
> For your points below:
> 
> 1) If the RSWG is proposing something that will impact the RPC's work, work flow, LOE, costs, SLA etc, having the RPC be able to explain exactly what will need to change to support the proposal, and explaining what could be moved around to make things work seems to be a useful input into whether the RSAB approves a document or returns it with comments to the RSWG.   Given that pretty much any document that describes functional albeit strategic changes will involve the RPC and that I would be surprised if there are many non-functional (changes not affecting function) proposed by the RSWG, it just makes sense that the RPC be included.  Filtering all that through the ED is not a) scalable (how much more gets piled on to Jay or his successor?), b) efficient (e.g. a pre-meeting with the ED and the RPC to prepare the ED for the RSAB meeting), c) error-free (think the game of "Telephone").  In fact having both the ED and the RPC there may mean that small tweaks can be approved quickly as both sides of the contract would be represented.

The ED cannot represent the RPC on the RSAB, act an intermediary or otherwise replace direct contact between the RPC and the RSAB.

> 
> 2) This one seems obvious - the RPC brings things to the RSAB for discussion.  Having a seat at the table to add things to the agenda vs being summoned at the whim of the RSAB - the equities argue for the former. I actually expect that most meetings (based on the RSOC's minutes) will involve RPC discussions of some sort under this heading.
> 
> 3) I need to get back to your other email on this point, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that the RSAB as a group should not be holding executive sessions for any reason.

The problem with that is the "RSCE Performance Evaluation" [1].  If you recall, we had a long conversation about this process requiring both community input and community review of the ED’s recommendations.

>   This task for the RSAB only really makes sense if all of the RSAB members excluding the RSCE were from their appointing organizations and were long-lived in the job - and neither of these appear to be guaranteed to be true.  In any event the presence of this task neither argues for or against non-voting ex-officio members.
> 
> 4) The ED doesn't have a role in the appeals process, but is still included as ex-officio so the presence of this task neither argues for or against having the RPC having an ex-officio member.  It's possible that both the ED and the RPC might have useful input into a given appeal which might be missed if either is excluded from the discussions.
> 
> I look forward to the opponents of the RPC being ex-officio providing related commentary - e.g.  a) why should a random membership of the RSAB decide whether the RPC relationship is ex-officio or something else? b) how often should they decide this (e.g. everytime a member changes out?  each meeting? each year? never?), c) what is the difference between an ex-officio member and one that gets invited to every meeting (e.g. is the difference that the RPC by rule sits mute until asked about something?  Should that rule apply to the ED as well? If not, why not?)

I’m not against the RPC being an ex-officio member, but I do think that if that is to be part of the model then the model should address any conflicts of interest from that ex-officio role.  I got the impression that John and Peter were close to text on that.  I don’t btw see any similar conflicts of interest with the ED despite John’s attempt to construct one.

Jay

[1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-07.html#section-5.2-1

>> I think people are misunderstanding the nature of the RSAB and the very model we are creating.
>> 
>> 	• Approve or disapprove RSWG work,
>> 	• Provide guidance to the RPC regarding certain inter-stream conflicts,
>> 	• Provide an opinion regarding feedback on the RSCE to the LLC, and 
>> 	• Address certain appeals.
>> That's it.
>> 
>> In each case, one should ask what benefit a formal liaison brings, or what risk the formal liaison mitigates, and what complications a formal liaison brings.
>> It's important to note that disputes and appeals are expected to be corner cases.  We should be careful about how we legislate them.  Principally, the work that needs to get done on policy development is meant to happen in the RSWG.  That is where the focus of interaction should be.
>> 
>> So.  I will ask advocates of an RPC liaison role to state clearly what risk they are intending to mitigate.  
>> 
>> A risk that we cannot mitigate are any limitations the ED or LLC may place on participation as a matter of LLC policy or contract.  Please don't argue that point here since there's nothing this group can or should do about that (any issues with that need to be brought to the LLC).
>> 
>> Eliot
>> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:55:51 -0500

>>    This task for the RSAB only really makes sense if all of the RSAB members excluding the RSCE were from their appointing organizations and were long-lived in the job - and neither of these appea…

Hi Jay -

As I noted in another, the discussion on [1]  happened at a time where I 
understood the RSAB to be composed of long-term (e.g. 2 years) delegates 
FROM the IESG, IAB and IRTF for those slots NOT appointees from the 
general population by those organizations to the RSAB who could be 
swapped out by whim at random intervals including right before the 
review process.  It's possible I'm confused about the result of that 
discussion, but I see nothing in the current document that requires the 
organizations to actually send members to the RSAB.

Under the model I believed we were originally working under, having the 
RSAB review an RSCE evaluation made some sense - not a lot, but some -  
as they could bring the views of the members of the organizations to 
which they belonged to the review of the RSCE performance.  That is not 
guaranteed for the newer model and thus makes evaluation of the RSCE by 
the RSAB no better than an evaluation/personal opinion by a random 
selection of people working with the RFC system.

Personally, I think you'd be better off creating an adhoc group as 
necessary from the IESG/IAB/IRTF/ISE to  do your review with the 
understanding they bring forward the views of their organizations - feel 
free to select members of the RSAB if they meet that criteria at the 
time you need to do the review. Looking at the bidding, I'm no longer 
sure why this is included here or needs to be specified here as it's a 
contract issue and the LLC Board is/will be responsible for the 
performance review process.

Mike

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 22:05:49 +0100

Mike we will not relitigate changes regarding RSCE feedback. That matter 
is settled and closed with consensus of this group.

Eliot

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:06:19 -0500

On 12/16/2021 3:24 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 12:14 PM Michael StJohns 
>>         I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.   If
>>         you're saying that sometimes some of the organizations
>>         permitted liaisons failed to send them, then sure, but that's
>>         the choice of the sending organization and doesn't undercut
>>         what I'm saying and in fact exactly mirrors what I said about
>>         the RPC choosing its representative or none at all.  If
>>         you're saying that a given Nomcom declined to seat a liaison
>>         from an organization that was allowed one by the current
>>         Nomcom procedures RFC - it never happened AFAICT.
>>
>>     I'm saying that the nomcom sets the terms under which the
>>     liaisons participate, and that in some cases it's a lot and in
>>     some cases it's much less. Which is precisely what I'm advocating
>>     for here, rather than prescribing the manner in which the liaison
>>     engages.
>>
>>     -Ekr
>>
>
>     Um.   See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8713 section
>     4.7 which specifies the roles and responsibilities of a Nomcom
>     liaison and those are not subject to constraint by the Nomcom on
>     which they serve.
>
>     It's possible you're referring to the above paragraph, but that's
>     "other duties as assigned" rather than "you can't participate in
>     the discussions".  AFAICT section 4.7 was last updated in 2015 and
>     before that was mostly the same but scattered throughout the
>     document.  The main operative change here was to make the
>     appointment of the ISOC liaison optional in both reality and as
>     written.
>
>

Section 5.9:

> Deliberations
>
>     All members of the NomCom may participate in all deliberations.
>
>     The emphasis of this rule is that no member can be explicitly
>     excluded from any deliberation.  However, a member may individually
>     choose not to participate in a deliberation.
which IMHO is definitive.

AFAICT, the only way the liaisons would not be allowed to fully 
participate - if they wanted to - is if the whole nomcom including the 
liaisons and advisors voted to restrict them in some manner. Sure that 
could happen legally, but that would require a majority vote of all of 
the participants, not just a majority vote of the voting members.  If 
everyone who can appoints a liaison, that's a total membership of 10 + 2 
(chair and past chair) + 5 liaisons => 17.  Which means 9 people would 
have to vote for the restriction for it to pass.

> Voting on all other issues is not the same as participating fully in 
> the discussion.

Never said it was - but never thought you'd think that voting on 
something without participating in the discussion was a thing.

Any other arguments on this point?

Later, Mike

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:13:59 -0500

> The ED cannot represent the RPC on the RSAB, act an intermediary or otherwise replace direct contact between the RPC and the RSAB.

What Jay said!

Mike

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 13:46:00 -0800

> which IMHO is definitive.

Thanks. As I said, I believe that in some nomcoms, this has not been the
practice and it is good to have something to point to.

Just in the interest of clarity: this does not alter my view that we do not
need to require an RPC member (liaison or otherwise) on the RSAB.

This is not to say that they should not be able to provide input, but they
can do so in the way that others do -- or, if the RSAB asks them to,
directly. I do not think that special participation rights not available to
the general community should be provided to them in this document.

-Ekr

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:54:48 -0500

On 12/16/2021 4:46 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Thanks. As I said, I believe that in some nomcoms, this has not been 
> the practice and it is good to have something to point to.
>
> Just in the interest of clarity: this does not alter my view that we 
> do not need to require an RPC member (liaison or otherwise) on the RSAB.
>
> This is not to say that they should not be able to provide input, but 
> they can do so in the way that others do -- or, if the RSAB asks them 
> to, directly. I do not think that special participation rights not 
> available to the general community should be provided to them in this 
> document.

Hi Ekr -

Let me point out that what you've done is stated an opinion, not given 
any reasons for that opinion.   Perhaps you might state a few reasons 
for your opinion?

Later, Mike

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 14:01:18 -0800

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:54 PM Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Just in the interest of clarity: this does not alter my view that we do
> not need to require an RPC member (liaison or otherwise) on the RSAB.
>
> Let me point out that what you've done is stated an opinion, not given any
> reasons for that opinion.   Perhaps you might state a few reasons for your
> opinion?
>
I just did. They can provide input the way that others do so and I haven't
seen any persuasive argument that they should have special participation
rights.

The underlying theme of this work is that the *community* decides. We have
constructed the RSAB as a limited check on that and it reflects certain
equities, but I don't believe that applies to the RPC.

-Ekr

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 17:03:26 -0500

On 12/16/2021 4:05 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Mike we will not relitigate changes regarding RSCE feedback. That 
> matter is settled and closed with consensus of this group.
>
> Eliot
>
>
Hi Eliot -

If you offer to give me an ox in exchange for a mule and I agree, but 
then you say that the ox died, but you have this nice goat that gives 
milk instead, I get to reconsider whether or not you get the mule.

In this case, the source of the cast of characters doing the review 
potentially changed, which synergistically may result in a decrease of 
the merit of the "closed" text you're defending.  If nothing comes from 
the discussion, I'm happy to close it out after a bit.

Later, Mike

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 17:16:33 -0500

On 12/16/2021 5:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:54 PM Michael StJohns 
>>     Thanks. As I said, I believe that in some nomcoms, this has not
>>     been the practice and it is good to have something to point to.
>>
>>     Just in the interest of clarity: this does not alter my view that
>>     we do not need to require an RPC member (liaison or otherwise) on
>>     the RSAB.
>>
>>     This is not to say that they should not be able to provide input,
>>     but they can do so in the way that others do -- or, if the RSAB
>>     asks them to, directly. I do not think that special participation
>>     rights not available to the general community should be provided
>>     to them in this document.
>
>
>     Hi Ekr -
>
>     Let me point out that what you've done is stated an opinion, not
>     given any reasons for that opinion. Perhaps you might state a few
>     reasons for your opinion?
>
> I just did. They can provide input the way that others do so and I 
> haven't seen any persuasive argument that they should have special 
> participation rights.
>
> The underlying theme of this work is that the *community* decides. We 
> have constructed the RSAB as a limited check on that and it reflects 
> certain equities, but I don't believe that applies to the RPC.
>
> -Ekr

I'm still seeing mostly opinion.  Nothing about how giving the RPC a 
seat might be bad for example.  Or why my arguments don't hold water?

When you say community, what I think you really mean are the people that 
show up to the RSWG will get to decide.  That is a community based 
decision process - it is not the community deciding in any way shape or 
form.  The community may ultimately decide to approve this process we're 
drafting.  The community will mostly not be deciding on individual 
documents and AIRC you've been a big opponent of requiring broader 
community review for some documents - so the definition of community 
you're laboring under feels a bit flexible.

AFAICT giving the RPC a seat at the table to be able to talk does not 
prevent the RSWG from proposing anything, nor does it necessarily 
prevent the RSAB from approving it.  What it does do is give the RSAB a 
consistently available source of ground truth that it can't easily 
ignore in its decision process.   Generally, more information is 
better.  Or do you disagree?

For the appeals process, if one occurs, having the RPC on record as to 
how they view the appealed proposal can only make the appeals process 
less error prone and the decisions less subjective.

So how does this prevent the "community" from deciding?

Later, Mike

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:43:43 +1300

Eric,

On 17-Dec-21 11:01, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...

> The underlying theme of this work is that the *community* decides. We have constructed the RSAB as a limited check on that and it reflects certain equities, but I don't believe that applies to the RPC.

I would expect that if the RSWG reaches consensus on a policy that the RPC considers unworkable (and RPC people have made this clear during the RSWG discussion), the RPC would anyway raise the issue with the ED, who is a non-voting RSAB member, as well as with the RSCE.

     Brian C

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 19:44:32 -0500

--On Thursday, December 16, 2021 22:05 +0100 Eliot Lear
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Mike we will not relitigate changes regarding RSCE feedback.
> That matter is settled and closed with consensus of this group.

Eliot,

I think there are two separate issues here and wonder if we
might be able to keep them separate:

(1) I agree that this should not be reopened, not necessarily
because I disagree with Mike's reasoning but because, if we
forbid the RSAG from having an executive session when sensitive
matters come up, we basic encourage such sessions being held in
secret and out of public view due to one loophole or the other
when didn't think to close.  For that reason, I'd rather see the
document allow such sessions but be sure their existence and the
justification for them are public.  I'll need to make another
pass through it with that question in mind before having an
opinion as to whether the document is adequate on that dimension.

(2) While I sympathize with and share your desire to keep moving
forward and to not revisit settled issues, one thing we have
observed before is that many of the issues facing us are
ultimately related to each other in complex ways.  While trying
separate them and address them separately and in some sequence
is obviously tempting and desirable, it inevitably raises the
risk of later decisions changing things (in this case and as
Mike points out, the definition of the RSCE role and the
composition of the RSAB) that undermine the assumptions that
underlay the earlier conclusions.  If those conclusions cannot
be reopened to evaluate whether subsequent changes might
undermine them and how, then I think we are in serious trouble
to the point that claims of rough consensus within the effort
become dubious.

  best,
   john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 17:58:13 -0700

>> On 17/12/2021, at 8:50 AM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:

Mike, I sure wish you'd take up interleaved replies - they're much 
easier to follow. :-)

>> For your points below: >>
>> 1) 

That is (from Eliot's email): "Approve or disapprove RSWG work,"

> If the RSWG is proposing something that will impact the RPC's work, work flow, LOE, costs, SLA etc, having the RPC be able to explain exactly what will need to change to support the proposal, and explaining what could be moved around to make things work seems to be a useful input into whether the RSAB approves a document or returns it with comments to the RSWG.   Given that pretty much any document that describes functional albeit strategic changes will involve the RPC and that I would be surprised if there are many non-functional (changes not affecting function) proposed by the RSWG, it just makes sense that the RPC be included.  Filtering all that through the ED is not a) scalable (how much more gets piled on to Jay or his successor?), b) efficient (e.g. a pre-meeting with the ED and the RPC to prepare the ED for the RSAB meeting), c) error-free (think the game of "Telephone").  In fact having both the ED and the RPC there may mean that small tweaks can be approved quickly as both sides of the contract would be represented.
> 

I do think Jay makes an important point here.

However, going back to Eliot's note, everything that Mike says about 
impacts on the RPC should have been covered in the RSWG long before the 
RSAB gets around to voting. As Ekr says, this is supposed to be a 
community-driven process and RPC folks should make sure their voices are 
heard very early on, not late in the process. In fact, we might want to 
alter our text in the workflow section along these lines:

OLD

    3.  The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal.
        Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as individuals in
        all discussions relating to RSWG proposals so that they are fully
        aware of proposals early in the policy definition process, and so
        that any issues or concerns that they have will be raised during
        the development of the proposal, not left until the RSAB review
        period.  The RSWG chairs are also expected to participate as
        individuals.

NEW

    3.  The RSWG shall then further discuss and develop the proposal.
        Members of the RSAB are expected to participate as individuals in
        all discussions relating to RSWG proposals so that they are fully
        aware of proposals early in the policy definition process, and so
        that any issues or concerns that they have will be raised during
        the development of the proposal, not left until the RSAB review
        period.  Representatives of the RPC should also participate so
        that any impacts on implementation of proposed policies are
        raised and addressed early in the process.  The RSWG chairs are
        also expected to participate as individuals.

>> 2) 

That is (from Eliot's email): "Provide guidance to the RPC regarding 
certain inter-stream conflicts,"

> This one seems obvious - the RPC brings things to the RSAB for discussion.  Having a seat at the table to add things to the agenda vs being summoned at the whim of the RSAB 

Stephen made a good point some threads ago about inflammatory language. 
Could we please avoid that? Why should we think that RSAB, peopled by 
people who presumably care a great deal about the Series and have 
significant knowledge of the Series (and have been appointed by the 
likes of the IESG or IAB), will act on whim?

> - the equities argue for the former. I actually expect that most meetings (based on the RSOC's minutes) will involve RPC discussions of some sort under this heading.

It's true that within RSOC there's often very productive discussion with 
a representative of the RPC. However, version 3 of the model gets rid of 
the RSOC and replaces it with, for the most part, community discussion 
within the RSWG.

With regard to the RPC bringing things to the RSAB for discussion, the 
context here is really Section 4.4, "Resolution of Disagreements between 
Authors and the RPC" (IMHO Eliot's phrasing "Provide guidance to the RPC 
regarding certain inter-stream conflicts" isn't quite accurate). In this 
case the RPC is already fully engaged because there's a disagreement 
with an author or set of authors on an RFC-to-be. So there's no need for 
"summoning" based on whim or reason.

>> 3) 

That is (from Eliot's email): "Provide an opinion regarding feedback on 
the RSCE to the LLC, and"

> I need to get back to your other email on this point, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that the RSAB as a group should not be holding executive sessions for any reason.
> 

Mike, do you see a special role for the RPC on point #3 or can their 
feedback be gathered as any other community feedback would be? As far as 
I can see, an RPC representative would not need to be an ex-officio of 
RSAB in order to provide this kind of feedback.

>> 4) 

That is (from Eliot's email): "Address certain appeals."

> The ED doesn't have a role in the appeals process, but is still included as ex-officio so the presence of this task neither argues for or against having the RPC having an ex-officio member.  It's possible that both the ED and the RPC might have useful input into a given appeal which might be missed if either is excluded from the discussions.

Here again I don't see a special role for the RPC regarding appeals to 
the RSAB of behavior by the RSWG or RSWG chairs.

> I’m not against the RPC being an ex-officio member, but I do think that if that is to be part of the model then the model should address any conflicts of interest from that ex-officio role.  I got…

Notwithstanding everything I've said above, I'm not against an RPC 
representative being an ex-officio member of the RSAB, for several reasons:

(a) it might be more efficient, especially with respect to §4.4 as 
described above but also with respect to uncovering any impacts on 
implementation of policy proposals

(b) an RPC representative could be more likely to raise concerns in the 
smaller venue of RSAB discussions than in the rough-and-tumble of the 
RSWG (I note that RPC folks haven't been all that active within this 
Program)

(c) the RSAB's remit is quite limited so it seems unlikely that 
including an RPC representative in RSAB discussions would be harmful, 
and could be beneficial because of reasons (a) and (b)

By the way, these considerations and others make me more inclined to 
specifying that RSAB discussions should be publicly archived and well 
minuted. Transparency is important here.

Peter

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:58:40 -0800

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:43 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I would expect that if the RSWG reaches consensus on a policy that the RPC
> considers unworkable (and RPC people have made this clear during the RSWG
> discussion), the RPC would anyway raise the issue with the ED, who is a
> non-voting RSAB member, as well as with the RSCE.
>

Yes this is what I would expect as well, which is part of why I don't
believe that we need a separate RPC liaison.

-Ekr

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 20:31:43 -0500

On 12/16/2021 7:58 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
For context only
>        period. 
This:

> Representatives of the RPC should also participate so
>        raised and addressed early in the process.

Hi Peter -

I think this needs to be broken out as a separate issue.

I believe that the RPC is not currently resourced to follow and 
participate in discussions of the intensity and type that are probable 
for the RSWG.  There also at least some difference in the necessary 
skills for reviewing a final proposal for input to the RSAB vs 
participating, analyzing, and injecting input in all stages of the 
proposal process in the RSWG.  That suggests the LLC would need to fund 
additional staffing (hours or person) for the RPC which may or may not 
be able to be made up from the current skill sets or personnel of the 
RPC provider.

   I haven't a clue what the scale factor would be but maybe at least 
3-6x?  E.g. if the RPC participating in the RSAB requires 10 hours per 
month,  participating in the RSWG might be require 30-60 hours?  (Both 
of these numbers guesses - I have no idea how much dedicated time either 
the RSAB or RSWG tasking to the the RPC would require, I just expect 
that it would be somewhat more for the RSWG than the RSAB given the 
relative duty cycles of each organization).

That's a change in the scope of the RPC that I don't think we've 
contemplated before and one that I'm not entirely comfortable with.

Later, Mike

ps - I'll get back to the rest of your note later - its well thought 
out, but I need a break from typing.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 07:32:27 +0100

John,

On 17.12.21 01:44, John C Klensin wrote:
> ultimately related to each other in complex ways.

I would agree if the matter was given only light consideration. That was 
NOT the case here.  Relitigating is disrespectful to the people who have 
negotiated in good faith to come to an agreement, particularly when the 
underlying facts on the ground haven't changed, as is the case here.  
That leads to people departing the process and THAT weakens consensus, 
and that none of us should tolerate.

Eliot

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 18:31:03 +0900

Eliot has asked for others to chime in to this discussion, so I'm trying 
to do that.

I think it would be best to give the RPC an ex officio (of course 
non-voting) position on the RSAB. The reasons for this have been given 
by Michael, mainly in 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/1qAC9KXjE2vHQC5WfHvnpMT97x8 
(the mail that starts with "Top posting because"), Jay, and by Peter 
below at the very end.

To summarize, if it's beneficial to have somebody from the RPC around 
anyway, then we should make that so.

Details (executive session of the RSAB yes/no,...) can be worked out.

One more minor point way below.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2021-12-17 09:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> rationales and engender a discussion, not to pick one point as the 
>>> true answer and require the other side to attack it.
>>>
>> If the RSWG is proposing something that will impact the RPC's work, 
>> exactly what will need to change to support the proposal, and 
>> explaining what could be moved around to make things work seems to be 
>> a useful input into whether the RSAB approves a document or returns it 
>> with comments to the RSWG.   Given that pretty much any document that 
>> that I would be surprised if there are many non-functional (changes 
>> not affecting function) proposed by the RSWG, it just makes sense that 
>> the RPC be included.  Filtering all that through the ED is not a) 
>> scalable (how much more gets piled on to Jay or his successor?), b) 
>> efficient (e.g. a pre-meeting with the ED and the RPC to prepare the 
>> ED for the RSAB meeting), c) error-free (think the game of 
>> "Telephone").  In fact having both the ED and the RPC there may mean 
>> that small tweaks can be approved quickly as both sides of the 
>> contract would be represented.
>>
>> The ED cannot represent the RPC on the RSAB, act an intermediary or 
>> otherwise replace direct contact between the RPC and the RSAB.
> 
>> This one seems obvious - the RPC brings things to the RSAB for 
>> being summoned at the whim of the RSAB 
> 
>> - the equities argue for the former. I actually expect that most 
>> meetings (based on the RSOC's minutes) will involve RPC discussions of 
>> some sort under this heading.
> 
> regarding certain inter-stream conflicts" isn't quite accurate).

I noticed that too.

> In this 
>> I need to get back to your other email on this point, but I'm becoming 
>> more and more convinced that the RSAB as a group should not be holding 
>> executive sessions for any reason.
>>
>> The problem with that is the "RSCE Performance Evaluation" [1].  If 
>> you recall, we had a long conversation about this process requiring 
>> both community input and community review of the ED’s recommendations.
>>
>>>    This task for the RSAB only really makes sense if all of the RSAB 
>>> members excluding the RSCE were from their appointing organizations 
>>> and were long-lived in the job - and neither of these appear to be 
>>> guaranteed to be true.  In any event the presence of this task 
>>> neither argues for or against non-voting ex-officio members.
> 
>> The ED doesn't have a role in the appeals process, but is still 
>> that both the ED and the RPC might have useful input into a given 
>> appeal which might be missed if either is excluded from the discussions.
> 
>>> related commentary - e.g.  a) why should a random membership of the 
>>> RSAB decide whether the RPC relationship is ex-officio or something 
>>> else? b) how often should they decide this (e.g. everytime a member 
>>> changes out?  each meeting? each year? never?), c) what is the 
>>> difference between an ex-officio member and one that gets invited to 
>>> every meeting (e.g. is the difference that the RPC by rule sits mute 
>>> until asked about something?  Should that rule apply to the ED as 
>>> well? If not, why not?)
>>
>> I’m not against the RPC being an ex-officio member, but I do think 
>> that if that is to be part of the model then the model should address 
>> any conflicts of interest from that ex-officio role.  I got the 
>> impression that John and Peter were close to text on that.  I don’t 
>> btw see any similar conflicts of interest with the ED despite John’s 
>> attempt to construct one.
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:59:35 -0500

--On Friday, December 17, 2021 07:32 +0100 Eliot Lear
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> (2) While I sympathize with and share your desire to keep
>> moving forward and to not revisit settled issues, one thing
>> we have observed before is that many of the issues facing us
>> are ultimately related to each other in complex ways.
> 
> I would agree if the matter was given only light
> consideration. That was NOT the case here.  Relitigating is
> disrespectful to the people who have negotiated in good faith
> to come to an agreement, particularly when the underlying
> facts on the ground haven't changed, as is the case here. 
> That leads to people departing the process and THAT weakens
> consensus, and that none of us should tolerate.

Eliot,

Procedurally, I'm disappointed by this response.   The assertion
was that key assumptions and decisions (whether characterized as
"facts on the ground" or not) had changed since the time of the
careful discussions to which you refer.  _If_ they have, then
reviewing that earlier discussion would seem to be entirely in
order.  Indeed, I suggest that if "we spent a lot of time on
that and people reached their conclusions after good-faith
negotiations, so the topic cannot be reopened", we'd still be
running NCP on the network.  Sometimes externalities change or,
if you want to pursue the legal analogies, new evidence is
discovered.

Now, it would have been, IMO, entirely reasonable had you said
something more like "we've been there and made a decision, we
(the co-chairs) believe that nothing substantive has changed,
and so, unless someone can provide clear evidence that the
assumptions that went into that decision are no longer correct,
do not bring it up again".  

But what you did say sounds more like something others have
suggested you are doing: making a decision and then telling
those who might disagree that the burden of proof is on them and
that you get to determine the rules for discussion.  Even the
perception of that is bad for the discussion and bad for claims
that the ultimate conclusions of this group represent broad, or
even rough, consensus of an informed and representative subset
of "the community".   

I, too, am concerned about people leaving the process and my
concerns/ complaints about very high mail volumes and repeated
arguments are very much part of that.  But I don't think moving
things along by chair assertion helps with that either.

I do not need a response to the above.  I believe the discussion
has moved on and that we should concentrate on the subject
matter rather than procedural discussions.  But please think
about it.

best,
   john

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 15:24:36 -0500

On 12/17/2021 1:32 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I would agree if the matter was given only light consideration. That 
> was NOT the case here.  Relitigating is disrespectful to the people 
> who have negotiated in good faith to come to an agreement, 
> particularly when the underlying facts on the ground haven't changed, 
> as is the case here.  That leads to people departing the process and 
> THAT weakens consensus, and that none of us should tolerate.
>
> Eliot
>
>

Hi Eliot -

Claiming the underlying facts haven't changed while they have is 
somewhat disingenuous.

In the instant case, the text on who was doing the review of the RSCE 
evaluation changed from "stream managers" to RSAB minus the RSEA/RSCE 
between rev 00 and rev 01.  Discussions on the need for the evaluation 
happened way before this.

Over the next 5 revs the concept of who was on the RSAB morphed a bit 
both in language and in fact.  While -00 had language such as "One 
delegate representing the IETF stream, appointed by the IESG" for the 
IESG and IAB, the IRTF chair was the stream representative for the IRTF 
and the ISE represented himself.   -01 allowed the IRTF chair to appoint 
a delegate instead of having the chair serve.

Then we get to the discussion between -05 and -06 where it was made 
clear that there was a difference of understanding on who actually could 
be appointed to the role of RSAB (if you really want me to, I can point 
to the various emails on this point - but its time I don't currently 
have and I'm sure you could do the research as well as I could).  There 
was my understanding (as well I believe others held the same 
understanding) that of course the representative would be appointed from 
the sending body.   Others came to the conclusion that the IESG, IAB, 
IRTF and even the ISE might be too busy to be able to execute the role, 
so why not let them appoint who they want as a delegate?

Discussion ensued along with the various discussions on term limits etc 
resulting in the current text (beginning in -06) of : "As the stream 
representative for the IETF stream, an IESG member or other person 
appointed by the IESG" with similar language for the IRTF, IAB and even 
the ISE.

So we went from a situation where the worst case was two of the RSAB 
member were Nomcom selected, with two members selected by a Nomcom 
selected body (e.g. the IAB) to a possible worst case of 4 RSAB members 
selected from the community, with two of them selected by a Nomcom 
selected body and two selected by other appointees.

During the -05-06 discussions I was focused on the principles document 
and thoughts about long term stability.  Had I had more time to 
consider, I would have brought this up in the above discussion, but at 
the time, while I thought it was a bad idea to devolve the 
responsibilities of the RSAB out of the IESG, IAB and IRTF, looking only 
at the two tasks of RSWG document approval and RPC interaction the only 
ones who might be hurt by that are the bodies themselves.  E.g. how does 
a random person A appointed by the IESG usefully represent the IESG if 
they are not participating in the IESG discussion.  But the various 
IAB/IESG/IRTF participants asked for a particular result and - 
considering only those two tasks - decided I could live with the changes 
(or clarifications as I would guess Eliot might call them).  I apologize 
for not speaking up about this earlier, but I was out of bandwidth.

I didn't think about the third (RSCE review) and fourth (appeals) tasks 
in the context of an RSAB composed of 4 random people who volunteer for 
the job.  Sounds more like the RSOC with respect to its composition than 
I expected when we started this.   As we've discussed before, the RSOC 
model with respect to personnel management was not optimal  and there 
was nothing the community could do about it except possibly fire the IAB 
who had appointed them over a period of two Nomcoms.

When I started my review of -07 (which is in pretty good shape and while 
I'm not happy with all of it I can live with it mostly), I wanted to 
take a look and see if anything popped where later changes changed how 
earlier changes were implemented - e.g were there any unintended 
consequences.   The other thing that was happening at the same time was 
the question of "transparency" for the RSAB.   That led to the RSAB 
membership model changes and to what Eliot calls a relitigation.

At this point I'm concerned with the membership of the review team that 
reads and responds to the EDs proposed RSCE evaluation, and whether that 
should continue to be the RSAB given the changes.  Having it be the RSAB 
made a bit more sense when their nexus with respect to their sending 
organizations was a bit closer, and also (not arguing about the change, 
just the impact) when there was more of a fixed term for a given 
member.   It might make more sense for the ED to convene a team 
themselves taking from the IESG, IAB, IRTF and ISE for the specific 
purpose here and have them run under appropriate LLC rules rather than 
try and craft them here.  If not, perhaps the following things should be 
considered:

  * Can a delegate to the RSAB share the review with a member of the
    sending organization?  With the whole organization?
  * Who is responsible for the response to the review - the RSAB member
    or the organization that sent them?
  * If the RSAB member is not a member of the sending organization, how
    are organizational issues gathered and reflected to ED for this review?

On the subject of transparency, if we remove the RSAB's personnel 
responsibilities, in what other situations would the RSAB need an 
executive session?  I agree we should provide for one, but the 
opportunities for such in camera proceedings should be very limited.

That's it.  This is not a hill I'm willing to die on.  But it's one that 
I found hard to ignore and it would have been disrespectful to the 
process not to speak up.

Later, Mike

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 22:34:41 +0100

Here is 00:

>     o  One delegate representing the IETF stream, appointed by the IESG
>
>     o  One delegate representing the IAB stream, appointed by the IAB
>
>     o  The IRTF Chair, representing the IRTF stream
>
>     o  The Independent Submissions Editor [RFC8730  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8730>]
>
>     o  The RFC Series Editor/Adviso

Here is -07:

>     *  As the stream representative for the IETF stream, an IESG member
>        or other person appointed by the IESG
>
>     *  As the stream representative for the IAB stream, an IAB member or
>        other person appointed by the IAB
>
>     *  As the stream representative for the IRTF stream, the IRTF chair
>        or other person appointed by the IRTF Chair
>
>     *  As the stream representative for the Independent stream, the
>        Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) [RFC8730  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8730>] or other person
>        appointed by the ISE
>
>     *  The RFC Series Consulting Editor

In summary:

  * The word delegate was removed,
  * The IRTF chair and ISE now can appoint representatives.
  * We adopted the term RSCE.

> selected body (e.g. the IAB) to a possible worst case of 4 RSAB 
> members selected from the community, with two of them selected by a 
> Nomcom selected body and two selected by other appointees.

As you can see, it was always the case that the IAB and IESG could 
select people from outside their ranks if they so chose. We did discuss 
whether those delegates should be from those bodies. That was Issue 38, 
raised by Martin Thomson in April.  We found consensus on that one in 
August.  We eliminated the word "delegate" because people couldn't agree 
on its implications, and so we found a clearer phrasing.  Allowing the 
ISE and IRTF chair to appoint a representative was intended to address 
risks of excessive processing delays by the RSAB due to vacancies.

It's okay to get busy.  This organization has a history of tolerating 
issues that are raised late in the process.  But if an issue got 
addressed while you were doing other things, that's not a reason to 
revisit it.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:04:00 +0100

Since it seems that we are heading in the direction of adding an RPC 
liaison to the RSAB, I would like to return to Jay's advice:

On 15.12.21 20:20, Jay Daley wrote:
> hen it comes to the RPC being a liaison to RSAB, then the situation is much more complex than it is for the ED.  In particular the RSAB needs to reconcile the following:
>
And I will add here, that of the RSCE as well.
> None of these are insurmountable, but I would hope that any proposal for the RPC being a mandatory liaison addresses those issues as not doing that puts the RSAB on a difficult footing from the start..

Please comment on how you would like these points addressed.

Peter wrote:

> A clarifying note based on an offlist conversation that John Klensin 
> and I had: it's important to distinguish between liaisons to the RSAB 
> and ex-officio members of the RSAB.

A liaison is someone who is sent to represent an organization. This is 
indeed what we have been discussing.  While the role may indeed be ex 
officio, that doesn't imply ex officio membership, because membership 
has its privileges (like voting).  If we are to use the term, it should 
be appropriately constrained.

Eliot

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:09:11 -0500

Eliot,

Since you asked, let me repeat and add a bit to some comments I
made on the 15th and point back to the original. Some of this
may have gotten lost or because it was in the bottom part of a
response to Peter.  Because of that and contrary to my usual
practice, I'm going to write separate notes addressing very
different parts of your comments.  This one is addressed to the
material you quoted from Jay's note.

--On Monday, December 20, 2021 14:04 +0100 Eliot Lear
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Since it seems that we are heading in the direction of adding
> an RPC liaison to the RSAB, I would like to return to Jay's
> advice:
> 
>> hen it comes to the RPC being a liaison to RSAB, then the
>> proposal for the RPC being a mandatory liaison addresses
>> those issues as not doing that puts the RSAB on a difficult
>> footing from the start..
> 

Edited from the last half of
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/3HnmQaRGb4R64ZeeCER9Lb9tWVk>
(the first half was a response to Peter about the use of the
term liaison).  The comment at the end is completely new in this
version:

I don't think that any of the above are hard.  I still believe
that the model we are specifying will work to produce the RFC
Series we want [[see below]] only if things can proceed
collegially, with people having open discussions, sharing
perspectives and opinions openly.  If the RSAB needs to go into
some type of  executive session to make certain decisions with
some or all the ex-officio members (and/or liaisons) excluded,
then so be it, but I would hope that:

session with the ED excluded, so be it.  So not so different from
the above.

[[New this time]]
What I think is key here is that I think that, the more we can
have open discussion, understand each other's perspectives, and
reach agreement, the better off we are.  By contrast, if, in
order to make progress, anyone needs to assert individual
authority to make a decision, that should be seen as a failure
--perhaps a necessary and acceptable one-- but a failure of that
open discussion process.  We should be trying to guard against
the need for such failures rather than doing things --including
excluding people from discussions for which their perspectives
might be helpful-- that enable or encourage them.

That should not be controversial.  We've turned the rather
powerful RSE role into the advisory and consultative RSCE one.
We've narrowed the conditions under which the RSAB can block
something rather than forcing more discussion down to nearly
zero.  If those actions imply consensus, let's apply the
corollaries.

      -----

"The RFC Series we want:"
I continue to hope that, small details aside, there really is a
shared vision for the future of the series and the criteria for
success.   I had some doubts about that early on and some recent
discussions reinforce those doubts.  The counter-hypothesis is
that there are at least two, incompatible, visions in the
community and on this mailing list.  If so, neither side has
done a good enough job of explaining their view to the other (or
listening to such explanations) to the point that we have a
shared understanding of what the disagreements about those
high-level goals actually are.  Or, more cynically, we have been
deliberately not having those discussions because they would be
paralyzing.  Instead, we continue to fuss about small details of
process and structure with those who adhere to one vision or the
other trying to organize things to increase the likelihood of
their vision prevailing in the long term.  If that
counter-hypothesis is correct, it probably also explains why an
attempt to nail down principles stirs such passion and
eventually turns into a discussion about how to water things
down enough that everyone can say "nothing really offensive
there" and move on and while particular changes look significant
--significant enough to justify reviewing older decisions-- to
some of us and trivial enough to others that looking again at
those old decisions would constitute re-litigating them.

And, if that counter-hypothesis is even nearly correct, I don't
envy you and Brian your jobs because doing them fairly, without
inadvertently biasing things one way or the other, is nearly
impossible.

best,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:41:36 -0500

(Part 2: What we call the relationships among various bodies who
might designate someone to participate in another bodies)

--On Monday, December 20, 2021 14:04 +0100 Eliot Lear
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Peter wrote:
> 
>> A clarifying note based on an offlist conversation that John
>> Klensin  and I had: it's important to distinguish between
>> liaisons to the RSAB  and ex-officio members of the RSAB.
> 
> A liaison is someone who is sent to represent an organization.
> This is indeed what we have been discussing.  While the role
> may indeed be ex officio, that doesn't imply ex officio
> membership, because membership has its privileges (like
> voting).  If we are to use the term, it should be
> appropriately constrained.

Eliot,

Peter's comment leaves out part of that conversation, presumably
because he didn't think it would be controversial (I didn't
think it would be either).  However...

Neither of those terms have the sort of universal and precise
meanings you attribute to them above.  In many contexts, as
Peter pointed out, "liaison" implies a two-way relationship,
e.g., if there was going to be a liaison from the RPC or the LLC
to the RSAB, then there would need to be liaisons from the RSAB
to the RPC and LLC respectively -- something we are definitely
not contemplating.  "Liaison" usually, but not always, implies
acceptance by the receiving organization, acceptance which might
be of the relationship and/or the designated individual.
Similarly, there are many contexts in which "ex-officio" implies
voting, many where it does not, and some where, if there is
voting to be done, "liaisons" vote.

Things are further confused by "liaison" sometimes referring to
a person, sometimes to the relationship (often, but not always,
as two bodies being in liaison with each other), or
correspondence associated with that relationship.

The important point from that conversation was not the terms but
that we seem to be heading toward three categories of
participants (temporarily avoiding "member" and the specific
meaning you attribute to it) in the RSAB:

(i) Designees of the IETF stream, the IAB stream, the IRTF
stream, and the Independent stream and the RSCE.  The document
currently uses the term "voting members" but also uses the term
"stream representative" for the first four.  The latter term, as
others have pointed out, may be misleading if someone is
designated who does not have regular access to discussions
within that stream's decision-making apparatus.

(ii) Designees of the Executive Director (the ED or delegate)
and, if I correctly read the direction of the discussion, the
RPC.

(iii) Parties or groups invited to participate in the RSAB
(possibly by delegating someone) with the invitations and their
specificity being at the discretion of the RSAB.  As I read the
I-D, the RSAB might invite individual experts for some specific
topic or duration, people who would not be "liaisons" in any of
the usual senses of that term.

I was arguing for clearly identifying those three categories as
different from each other and, in particular, clearly separating
the second and third.  Although terminology is not clearly
assigned, that is consistent with the current text, where
"liaison" is used only as an example of part of the third
category.

So, while I/we proposed "member", "ex-officio", and "liaison",
it might be equally reasonable -- and less likely to create
confusion with definitions or conceptions already in people's
heads -- to designate them "eagles", "geese", and "ducks".  The
point was to make them clearly separate categories and then,
separately, sort out which ones vote (when voting is needed),
which ones can be excluded from specific meetings, and, if there
are other issues or privileges, how those are allocated.   For
example, I don't know whether it would be reasonable for the
RSAB to be able to hold closed meetings with the geese as well
as the ducks excluded, but I think we need to make separate
decisions about the geese and ducks (or decide to delegate that
decision to the RSAB on a case by case basis).  And I don't know
how much we should try to constrain the RSAB about holding those
meetings and the conditions that would apply to them (I believe
Mike has argued for "no such meetings", I've argued in my
earlier note for a set of constraints, and others might suggest
"leave it to the discretion of the RSAB eagles", so there are a
wide range of options).

However, let's avoid confusing the three categories --because
they really are different-- or making up a term for a category
and then start attributing properties like voting, reciprocity,
or potential exclusion to it because of what some of us think
the term means.  If we cannot use terms like "ex-officio" and
"liaison" without falling into that trap, then I recommend the
next draft use "eagles, geese, and ducks" or some other triple
of the editor's choice.

best,
    john

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:54:35 -0500

Hi -

Most of you should ignore what follows.  I've made my comment about the 
possible need to revisit the role of the RSAB in reviewing the RSCE in 
light of the expansion of possible RSAB members outside the sending 
organizations.   As I said in my previous email, this is not a hill I am 
willing to die on, and I expected the discussion would have been short.

Unfortunately, Eliot's last message needs a response to correct both 
facts and conclusions.  Most of this was in my previous email or implied 
from it.

In any event, feel free to ignore this and I apologize in advance for 
using up space in your mailbox on this.

Hi Eliot -

I reached out to Heather to make sure I understood the history of the 
"stream managers".   According to her this was the ground truth:

    At the beginning of her tenure, the stream managers were the three
    chairs and the ISE.  Sometime after Andrew was selected as IAB chair
    he started devolving responsibilities to other IAB members - the IAB
    stream manager's job being one of them.  There appears to have been
    a brief discussion about this among that group, with the result that
    it was felt that any member of the IAB could represent the IAB, and
    likewise for the IESG.   But at no time was there even the hint of
    discussion that it would be appropriate for either of those groups
    to appoint a non-member.

    For the IRTF, the chair was the default and as of at least 2019 or
    before the IRTF chair also claimed the right to delegate
    (https://irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html).

As far as I've been able to tell (and I'll ask Adrian and/or Nevil to 
chime in if I'm wrong), there was no discussion among the stream 
managers that the IRTF chair would go outside the IRTF community for 
such a member.  Remember that, unlike the IETF, IRTF RGs have (or are 
supposed to have) a defined membership and that would probably be 
considered the community.

AFAICT, up to the time we started this program, only the IAB had taken 
advantage of the looser interpretation of the stream manager and 
appointed a non-chair. I may be wrong about that given that these 
positions were not generally announced to a public mailing list as they 
were primarily administrative.

>   * We adopted the term RSCE.
The above is correct, but ignores both the history of who had the stream 
manager role, and the reality of the changes between -05 and -06.

-01 clarified the ability of the IRTF chair to appoint a delegate that 
historically existed but was missed in -01.

> select people from outside their ranks if they so chose.
>
This is incorrect.

The discussion between -05 and -06 under the subject of "Who are the 
stream managers?" started by Lars at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/j0ulWNMMPzJsNTnIx0eLsazviFU/ 
made it clear that the question you thought was disposed of by issue 38 
was still unresolved.  To whit:

Lars:

    All this leaves me with a bunch of questions about whether stream
    managers and stream approving bodies are just two terms for the same
    role. If the roles are different, is there any RFC that I missed
    that would define who the stream managers are?

John K:

    If we are doing something different, e.g., with named individuals as
    RSAB members, perhaps it would be helpful to drop the "manager"
    terminology and talk about "stream representative", "stream
    spokesperson", or "stream designee".

    NEW: The approval bodies for the RFC streams are the IAB, IESG,
    IRSG, and ISE. Each approval body designates, by a method of its
    choosing, a Stream Representative to act as an administrative point
    of contact on behalf of that stream and member of the RSAB.

Colin:

    If we go that route, I’d suggest IAB and IESG select one of their
    members to be their stream manager, IRTF Chair and ISE are the
    managers for the respective streams but can delegate.

Peter: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/KCZFN0nEFjFC92XafoG8s_2Pmt8/

     > If we go that route, I’d suggest IAB and IESG select one of their
    members to be their stream manager, IRTF Chair and ISE are the
    managers for the respective streams but can delegate.

      I think that's effectively what our current text says.

John K: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/JJAfHcCn3OoxfF1AGps3oV1hwJM/

     > I think that's effectively what our current text says.

    Yes, modulo another distinction. There is a significant distinction
    between our piling this on the Chairs and then saying "they can
    delegate" versus our saying "up to the body". "More duties,
    responsibilities, and power to the Chairs" is not necessarily a good
    idea and should be beyond the scope of this effort to decide anyway.
    So..

And so on.  The discussion makes clear that before October 12th, there 
was no consensus on whether the IAB or IESG could appoint 
non-(IAB/IESG)members to the RSAB and an assumption (at least according 
to Peter and others who replied to Peter's comment) was that the IAB and 
IESG were expected to select from their membership.

Peter proposed the -06 language  in 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/KCZFN0nEFjFC92XafoG8s_2Pmt8/ 
which removed any language about requiring the IAB/IESG to appoint from 
their membership and that's what ultimately made it in when the 
discussion petered (pun intended) out.  There wasn't a formal consensus 
call on the text, but there was on the document.

> We did discuss whether those delegates should be from those bodies.  
> That was Issue 38, raised by Martin Thomson in April. 

Issue #38 ended up getting revisited by the discussion between -05 and 
-06.  38 closed without any changes to the delegation process and AFAICT 
no text changes were attributed to that issue. Specifically your summary of

    On this issue 38, based on discussion on list and in the meeting, we
    think we have consensus that the appointing bodies should establish
    their own policies as to how their representatives are appointed.

Ended up needing clarification which clarification was addressed in 
October and that resulted in an effective change from the status quo.

Note that issue 38 was closed on August 27th, which means that changes 
from this issue should have shown up in -02 - none did.

> We found consensus on that one in August.  We eliminated the word 
> "delegate" because people couldn't agree on its implications, and so 
> we found a clearer phrasing.  Allowing the ISE and IRTF chair to 
> appoint a representative was intended to address risks of excessive 
> processing delays by the RSAB due to vacancies.
>
Nope - this didn't happen until -05 to -06 - October, not August.

> addressed while you were doing other things, that's not a reason to 
I was busy on the principles stuff during the run up to publishing -06 
and was following the "What is a stream manager" discussion, but thought 
it was headed in the right direction.  I missed Peter's proposal of the 
text and its incorporation, but might have still missed the implications 
of letting the IESG and IAB select outside their membership even if I 
had seen it.  I saw it with my last review of -07 and here we are.

This is a new issue, triggered by the changes between -05 and -06, not a 
revisitation of an old one (or as you've tried to cast it - a 
relitigation).   And as far as I can tell it is probably now moot.

Later, Mike

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:15:55 -0500

On 12/20/2021 8:04 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> liaison to the RSAB, I would like to return to Jay's advice: A 
> clarifying note based on an offlist conversation that John Klensin and 
> I had: it's important to distinguish between liaisons to the RSAB and 
> ex-officio members of the RSAB.
>
> has its privileges (like voting).  If we are to use the term, it 
> should be appropriately constrained.

Ex officio means simply "by virtue of their position or status", it does 
not imply voting or non voting, but it does imply membership as a matter 
of right.

The RFC Editor was a non-voting ex officio member of the IAB. The IETF 
Chair was a voting ex officio member of the IAB.  The chair of the IRTF 
is a non-voting ex officio member of the IAB. The IAB ED is an ex 
officio member of the IAB.

A liaison may be a voting or non voting member, but generally falls in 
the latter category.   E.g. **a person who helps organizations or groups 
to work together and provide information to each other.  Those are 
generally not positions held by right but require mutual agreement.

The ED is a non-voting ex officio member of the RSAB.

The RPC may appoint a non-voting ex officio member of the RSAB.

The RSAB may create additional non-voting ex officio positions through 
the normal RSWG process.  The RSAB may create non-voting liaison 
positions through mutual agreement with any organization it deems useful 
to the RFC Series process.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:12:58 +1300

I'd go with this (from Mike):

"The RPC may appoint a non-voting ex officio member of the RSAB."

but we probably need a note that the voting members of the RSAB
may hold private discussions among themselves for good cause
(which we can't stop them doing anyway).

Regards
    Brian C

On 21-Dec-21 02:04, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> hen it comes to the RPC being a liaison to RSAB, then the situation is 
much more complex than it is for the ED.  In particular the RSAB needs to

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 18:51:59 -0500

> "The RPC may appoint a non-voting ex officio member of the

WFM.

> (which we can't stop them doing anyway).

As you imply, I'd rather regularize that than try to stop them.
But, as I've suggested before, I think the community would be
well served by insisting that the fact that such meetings are
being held and an explanation of the cause be public.  If
circumstance prevent the light of openness from shining into the
room in which such meetings are held, it should at least be able
to illuminate the specific cause/ justification for such a
meeting.   A line or two in an agenda or minutes that says "the
RSAB went into executive session to discuss ABC because..."
should not be unreasonably burdensome and would provide the
community at least a bit of accountability.

    john

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 23:53:02 +0000

> On 20 Dec 2021, at 18:54, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi - 
> 
> Most of you should ignore what follows.  I've made my comment about the possible need to revisit the role of the RSAB in reviewing the RSCE in light of the expansion of possible RSAB members outside the sending organizations.   As I said in my previous email, this is not a hill I am willing to die on, and I expected the discussion would have been short.  
> 
> Unfortunately, Eliot's last message needs a response to correct both facts and conclusions.  Most of this was in my previous email or implied from it.   
> 
> In any event, feel free to ignore this and I apologize in advance for using up space in your mailbox on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Eliot - 
> 
> I reached out to Heather to make sure I understood the history of the "stream managers".   According to her this was the ground truth:
> At the beginning of her tenure, the stream managers were the three chairs and the ISE.  Sometime after Andrew was selected as IAB chair he started devolving responsibilities to other IAB members - the IAB stream manager's job being one of them.  There appears to have been a brief discussion about this among that group, with the result that it was felt that any member of the IAB could represent the IAB, and likewise for the IESG.   But at no time was there even the hint of discussion that it would be appropriate for either of those groups to appoint a non-member.   
> 
> For the IRTF, the chair was the default and as of at least 2019 or before the IRTF chair also claimed the right to delegate (https://irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html <https://irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html>).  

I wrote that page, after discussion about cross-stream updates with the IRSG and IESG. It was published in October 2019. The phrasing "The IRTF stream manager (i.e., the IRTF chair, or their delegate)” was my understanding of the status quo at that time, not a new claim. 

RFC 2014 is silent on the topic. RFC 7827 states that some of the administrative duties of the IRTF chair "may be permanently or temporarily delegated to other IRSG members”. I believe stream manager is included in the set of responsibilities that could be delegated. I’m not aware that it has been delegated.
> As far as I've been able to tell (and I'll ask Adrian and/or Nevil to chime in if I'm wrong), there was no discussion among the stream managers that the IRTF chair would go outside the IRTF community for such a member.

It would be a matter for the IRTF Chair and IAB to discuss if there were any such proposal. 

> Remember that, unlike the IETF, IRTF RGs have (or are supposed to have) a defined membership and that would probably be considered the community.

Research groups may have open or closed membership. All current RGs have open membership, hence there is no defined set of members for any IRTF RG.

Colin

> AFAICT, up to the time we started this program, only the IAB had taken advantage of the looser interpretation of the stream manager and appointed a non-chair.   I may be wrong about that given that these positions were not generally announced to a public mailing list as they were primarily administrative.
> 
> 
> 
>> The word delegate was removed, 
>> The IRTF chair and ISE now can appoint representatives.  
>> We adopted the term RSCE.
> The above is correct, but ignores both the history of who had the stream manager role, and the reality of the changes between -05 and -06.
> 
> -01 clarified the ability of the IRTF chair to appoint a delegate that historically existed but was missed in -01.
> 
> 
>>> So we went from a situation where the worst case was two of the RSAB member were Nomcom selected, with two members selected by a Nomcom selected body (e.g. the IAB) to a possible worst case of 4 RSAB members selected from the community, with two of them selected by a Nomcom selected body and two selected by other appointees.
>> As you can see, it was always the case that the IAB and IESG could select people from outside their ranks if they so chose.
>> 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> The discussion between -05 and -06 under the subject of "Who are the stream managers?" started by Lars at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/j0ulWNMMPzJsNTnIx0eLsazviFU/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/j0ulWNMMPzJsNTnIx0eLsazviFU/> made it clear that the question you thought was disposed of by issue 38 was still unresolved.  To whit: 
> 
> Lars: 
> 
> All this leaves me with a bunch of questions about whether stream managers and stream approving bodies are just two terms for the same role. If the roles are different, is there any RFC that I missed that would define who the stream managers are?
> 
> John K: 
> 
> If we are doing something different, e.g., with named individuals as RSAB members, perhaps it would be helpful to drop the "manager" terminology and talk about "stream representative", "stream spokesperson", or "stream designee".
> 
> NEW: The approval bodies for the RFC streams are the IAB, IESG, IRSG, and ISE. Each approval body designates, by a method of its choosing, a Stream Representative to act as an administrative point of contact on behalf of that stream and member of the RSAB. 
> 
> Colin: 
> 
> If we go that route, I’d suggest IAB and IESG select one of their members to be their stream manager, IRTF Chair and ISE are the managers for the respective streams but can delegate.
> Peter:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/KCZFN0nEFjFC92XafoG8s_2Pmt8/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/KCZFN0nEFjFC92XafoG8s_2Pmt8/>
> > If we go that route, I’d suggest IAB and IESG select one of their members to be their stream manager, IRTF Chair and ISE are the managers for the respective streams but can delegate.
> 
> John K: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/JJAfHcCn3OoxfF1AGps3oV1hwJM/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/JJAfHcCn3OoxfF1AGps3oV1hwJM/>
> Yes, modulo another distinction. There is a significant distinction between our piling this on the Chairs and then saying "they can delegate" versus our saying "up to the body". "More duties, responsibilities, and power to the Chairs" is not necessarily a good idea and should be beyond the scope of this effort to decide anyway. So..
> 
> 
> And so on.  The discussion makes clear that before October 12th, there was no consensus on whether the IAB or IESG could appoint non-(IAB/IESG)members to the RSAB and an assumption (at least according to Peter and others who replied to Peter's comment) was that the IAB and IESG were expected to select from their membership.   
> 
> Peter proposed the -06 language  in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/KCZFN0nEFjFC92XafoG8s_2Pmt8/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/KCZFN0nEFjFC92XafoG8s_2Pmt8/> which removed any language about requiring the IAB/IESG to appoint from their membership and that's what ultimately made it in when the discussion petered (pun intended) out.  There wasn't a formal consensus call on the text, but there was on the document.
> 
>> We did discuss whether those delegates should be from those bodies.  That was Issue 38, raised by Martin Thomson in April. 
> Issue #38 ended up getting revisited by the discussion between -05 and -06.  38 closed without any changes to the delegation process and AFAICT no text changes were attributed to that issue.  Specifically your summary of 
> 
> On this issue 38, based on discussion on list and in the meeting, we think we have consensus that the appointing bodies should establish their own policies as to how their representatives are appointed.
> Ended up needing clarification which clarification was addressed in October and that resulted in an effective change from the status quo.  
> 
> Note that issue 38 was closed on August 27th, which means that changes from this issue should have shown up in -02 - none did.
> 
> 
> 
>> We found consensus on that one in August.  We eliminated the word "delegate" because people couldn't agree on its implications, and so we found a clearer phrasing.  Allowing the ISE and IRTF chair to appoint a representative was intended to address risks of excessive processing delays by the RSAB due to vacancies.
>> 
>> It's okay to get busy.  This organization has a history of tolerating issues that are raised late in the process.  But if an issue got addressed while you were doing other things, that's not a reason to revisit it.
>> 
> I was busy on the principles stuff during the run up to publishing -06 and was following the "What is a stream manager" discussion, but thought it was headed in the right direction.  I missed Peter's proposal of the text and its incorporation, but might have still missed the implications of letting the IESG and IAB select outside their membership even if I had seen it.  I saw it with my last review of -07 and here we are.
> 
> This is a new issue, triggered by the changes between -05 and -06, not a revisitation of an old one (or as you've tried to cast it - a relitigation).   And as far as I can tell it is probably now moot.
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Eliot
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 19:19:07 -0500

On 12/20/2021 6:53 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> Remember that, unlike the IETF, IRTF RGs have (or are supposed to 
>> have) a defined membership and that would probably be considered the 
>> community.
>
> Research groups may have open or closed membership. All current RGs 
> have open membership, hence there is no defined set of members for any 
> IRTF RG.
>
> Colin

Hi Colin -

I don't necessarily disagree with the above (or the parts I edited out), 
but even with open membership (RFC 2014):

    The IRTF is a composed of a number of focused, long-term, SMALL
    Research Groups.

    Research Groups
    are expected to have the STABLE long term MEMBERSHIP needed to
    promote the development of research collaboration and teamwork in
    exploring research issues.

Emphasis mine.

Open vs closed applies to how members are enrolled in the RG (e.g. does 
the existing membership get a vote on who joins - yes -> closed, no -> 
open), not so much on whether they're expected to be identifiable, long 
term and active participants. So while I believe your statement that no 
RG has a defined set of members, I'm wondering if that is consistent 
with the intent of 2014, whether it should be , and how long since there 
was a membership model?

It's possible this is no longer the way the IRTF should be viewed, in 
which case it may be time for a complete update of RFC 2014.

But that's obviously not an RFCED topic.

Thanks - Mike

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 00:36:28 +0000

> On 21 Dec 2021, at 00:19, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I don't necessarily disagree with the above (or the parts I edited out), but even with open membership (RFC 2014): 
> 
> Open vs closed applies to how members are enrolled in the RG (e.g. does the existing membership get a vote on who joins - yes -> closed, no -> open), not so much on whether they're expected to be identifiable, long term and active participants.  So while I believe your statement that no RG has a defined set of members, I'm wondering if that is consistent with the intent of 2014, whether it should be , and how long since there was a membership model?
> 
I believe the current RGs operate in a manner that’s consistent with RFC 2014. 
> It's possible this is no longer the way the IRTF should be viewed, in which case it may be time for a complete update of RFC 2014.
> 

As you say, this is off-topic for this list.

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/