Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Moving forward: Please state your preference

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 23:20:36 -0400

FWIW, I agree with Mike.  It seems obvious to me (and was the
main reaon I voted "not ready" last week) that several of the
specific questions I think Eliot is trying to get at with both
Options A and B are not orthogonal [1].  Consequently, if we try
to
go forward by asking a question, reaching a conclusion, and than
considering that conclusion as firm, the order in which
questions are posed is likely to affect the overall conclusions.
If we are allowed to revisit settled questions when the
interactions with others are clear, it will feel as if we are
going around in circles.

Too many of us are starting from such philosophically different
assumptions that "choose one" is just not an answer (the
interaction between Adam and myself is probably a symptom).  I
still suspect (not sure) that (as I suggested during the call)
the most productive path forward would be to find a neutral but
knowledgeable volunteer to create a new document, possibly
building on Nevil's rather than Brian's, Martin's, or Mike's or
just starting from scratch) and get an outline and what we have
actually agreed on written down, then see if we can start adding
thinks in.

best,
   john

[1] Statistical observation: While it is worth trying,
multivariate situations with non-orthogonal variates often do
not lend themselves to developing clarity via Venn diagrams.

--On Saturday, September 19, 2020 13:13 -0400 Michael StJohns
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> For the same reasons we discussed on the call, I choose option
> C - we're not ready to pick a path.   That looks closer to
> Option B than it does option A but probably actually isn't the
> same.  We've talked about common solution elements, but we're
> still having major discussions (cf John and and Adam's back
> and forth) about the implications of various choices such that
> picking solution elements are still quite difficult.  Among
> other things, many of the elements are entwined - e.g.,
> choosing choice A of Group 1 may restrict your choices in
> Group 2 to choices C and F.
> 
> 
> As I read it we've agreed mostly on one thing:
> 
>   * That the stream managers will take a major role in the
> evolution
>     process of the RFC Series.
> 
> We seem to have also agreed that (I think this is what I got
> an agreement on from Martin and Brian when I asked the
> question on the call):
> 
>   * The LLC will be responsible for any contractual items
> including
>     hiring/firing/renewals/day-to-day and that any delegation
> of that
>     role will be only to a "fiduciary" of the LLC (e.g.
> employee or a
>     contracted role) to specifically exclude the IAB/RSOC
> personnel
>     management model.
> 
> We haven't agreed on:
> 
>   * Whether there will be a professional involved in the
> steering, or
>     the model of engagement for that professional.  (e.g.
> employee or
>     retained contractor with primary responsibility vs
> employee or
>     retained contractor with advisory only responsibility or a
>     professional contractor engaged only for task-specific
> short term
>     items).
> 
>   * The model for publication of documents that drive the
> publication
>     process.
> 
> And lots more.
> 
> I've been trying to do a topological sort and figure out which
> of the problems is the core one that we need to come to a
> conclusion on, and I'm at a loss.
> 
> Mike
>