Markdown Version | Session Recording

Session Date/Time: 10 Nov 2021 14:30

rfcefdp

Summary

The rfcefdp session marked the "final stretch" of the RFC Editor Future Development Program. The primary goal of the meeting was to address and resolve as many outstanding issues as possible, aiming to avoid the need for another interim meeting. Discussions focused on a range of issues, from editorial tweaks to more substantial policy and process definitions, with a particular emphasis on issues around "heritage" (principles), appeals, and the nature of RSWG "statements."

Key Discussion Points

Program Status and Timeline Update

• Recent Dispatches: draft-carpenter-rcib-charter and the 2026 RFC Editor update were dispatched.
• Next Draft: A new version of the main draft, incorporating meeting results and editorial changes, is expected early next week.
• IAB Review: The IAB is expected to initiate broader community review based on RFC 4845, with potential approval by the end of January.
• RSWG Formation: Formation of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) is expected shortly after IAB approval.
• Assumption: This timeline assumes no more substantial issues and successful resolution of current ones.

Issue Resolution Strategy

• Issues were grouped into: Editorial, Agreement, Lacking Support, and Requiring More Discussion.
• Chairs requested concise comments to facilitate progress.

Specific Issue Discussions

Editorial Issues (Consensus to accept, Peter Saint-Andre to incorporate)

• Issue 106: Concise abstract statement.
• Issue 107: Clarity on RFC updates in the introduction.
• Issue 112: Minor editing of RPC Statement of Work (SOW).
• Issue 121: Header change for outreach section (not addressing outgoing outreach).
• Issue 122: Wording change to refer to RPC as "contractually overseen."
• Issue 124: Minor tweak to cover legacy RFC Editor documents for continuity.
• Issue 126: Wording for point-in-time RPC responsibilities.
• Issue 130: Normative language ("shall choose") for process.
• Issues 131, 132: Normative references to RFCs 2119, 8171, and RFC 2418 (for process management).
• Issue 133: Concise phrasing for "member of community."

Issues with General Agreement (Accepted, subject to list confirmation)

• Add reference to draft-carpenter: Already incorporated.
• Temporary RFC Editor appointment: Proposal by Jay accepted; no significant objections raised.
• Missing RPC responsibilities: Jay's elaborations accepted; no concerns raised.
• Issue 108 (Remove "ultimate" from LLC authority): Reaffirmed consensus to remove the word "ultimate."
• Issue 109 ("RFC Interest or equivalent"): Wording tweak proposed by Brian Carpenter accepted.
• Issue 128 (RSCE proactively providing guidance): Accepted that the RSCE should not wait to be consulted, and can provide guidance proactively (e.g., removing "if requested" from text).
• Issue 134 (RSAP declining proposal): Accepted that if an RSAP vote does not approve a proposal, it is returned to the RSWG for further consideration, without mandating changes.

Issues Lacking Support / Provisional Closure (Unless specific proposals emerge quickly)

• Issue 98 (Resignation timer reset for RSAB appointments):
  • Lars: Argued for restarting the 3-month timer if subsequent resignations occur to ensure new appointees have sufficient time.
  • Mike, Colin, Ecker: Raised concerns about potential for endless restarts and over-constraining the process, suggesting tying the timer to community last call completion rather than individual vacancies.
  • Outcome: Provisional acceptance to restart the timer upon additional resignation, to be confirmed on the mailing list.
• Issue 101 (Editorial expertise concerns): John Klensin's concern. No actionable textual proposals were identified. Proposed for closure unless specific proposals are made on the list quickly.
• Issue 102 (Lack of accountability concerns): John Klensin's concern. No specific textual proposal identified. Proposed for closure.
• Issue 116 (Listing RFCs in the new editorial stream): Previously decided against. No strong support to revisit this decision.

Issues Requiring More Discussion (No Consensus, to be taken to the list)

• Issue 111 (Consistency in selection committee formation): Initially grouped as editorial, but Jay's comment suggested these two instances should remain separate. Re-categorized for further discussion.
• Issue 119 (Heritage/Principles of the RFC series):
  • Mike: Proposed adding explicit principles (e.g., availability, accessibility, publication language, archival quality) as guardrails, suggesting these require higher-level delegator approval to change.
  • Peter: Argued that existing RFCs (8728, 8729) already address some principles and that defining new ones now would lead to prolonged debate. Suggested the RSWG could take on a document about principles later.
  • Joel: Agreed with Mike on the importance of defining base principles that the RSWG cannot unilaterally change, even if the final set is smaller than desired.
  • Ecker, Christian: Expressed concern about spending too much time debating specific wording for principles and preferred focusing on the current draft.
  • Outcome: No consensus. To be taken to the list for quick proposals that can garner support.
• Issue 93 (Appeals against RSAB decisions):
  • Martin: Proposed clearer grounds for appeals against RSAB decisions: process, contravention of existing policy, and no other cases.
  • Discussion: Centered on whether the IAB should reinterpret RSAB's policy interpretations, and the RSAB's role in making decisions when no clear policy exists (where such decisions should not be appealable).
  • Outcome: No consensus. Back to the mailing list for more detailed discussion, focusing on the source of the issue before formulating language.
• Issue 94 (Inter-stream dispute resolution):
  • Martin: Proposed shifting the responsibility for resolving inter-stream policy disagreements to the RSAP.
  • Outcome: General agreement, though a minor editorial fix for implied timing was noted. To be confirmed on the list.
• Issue 117 (Statements by RSWG, Website Control, Process Establishment):
  • Statements by RSWG:
    • Joel: Strongly opposed RSWG issuing binding statements, advocating for focus on RFCs.
    • Miria: Agreed, suggesting RSWG's purpose is to write RFCs. RSAB might be more appropriate for timely conflict resolutions.
    • Mark: Noted overhead of publishing some things as RFCs, questioned why IAB/IESG issue non-RFC statements. Miriam clarified these are not community consensus statements.
    • Outcome: No consensus on RSWG statements; issue set aside for now.
  • Website Control / Process Establishment: A homework assignment was given for the community to discuss on the list whether the RSWG can establish processes for areas like open source or content management, working with the LLC.

Decisions and Action Items

• Editorial Issues: Many editorial issues (106, 107, 112, 121, 122, 124, 126, 130, 131, 132, 133) were accepted, and Peter Saint-Andre will incorporate them into the next draft.
• Consensus Issues: Issues with general agreement (temporary RCE appointment, missing RPC responsibilities, removal of "ultimate" from LLC authority, "RFC Interest or equivalent" wording, RSCE proactive guidance, RSAP declining proposals) are provisionally accepted, pending confirmation on the mailing list.
• Issue 98 (Resignation Timer): Provisional acceptance to restart the 3-month timer upon additional resignations, to be confirmed on the mailing list.
• Issue 101, 102, 116: Proposed for closure unless specific textual proposals are brought to the mailing list quickly.
• Issue 93 (Appeals against RSAB): No consensus, return to the mailing list for further detailed discussion.
• Issue 94 (Inter-stream Dispute Resolution): General agreement, minor editorial fix for timing to be confirmed on the mailing list.
• Issue 117 (Process Establishment): Community homework to discuss on the mailing list whether RSWG can establish processes for open source/content management with LLC.

Next Steps

• Chairs (Elliot and Brian) and editor (Peter Saint-Andre) will review the results of this meeting and editorial comments early next week to produce a new version of the main draft.
• The community is encouraged to resolve outstanding contentious issues (e.g., heritage/principles, appeals, process establishment) on the mailing list quickly.
• The IAB is expected to begin its community review process, aiming for approval by the end of January.
• The formation of the RSWG will commence shortly after IAB approval.
• The need for another interim meeting will be assessed based on the speed of issue resolution on the mailing list.