Opened 12 years ago

Closed 11 years ago

#66 closed defect (fixed)

(B.26) Section 4.1, Vendor Selection

Reported by: john+rfc@… Owned by: jmh@…
Priority: minor Milestone: milestone1
Component: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2 Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call Keywords:


(B.26) Section 4.1, Vendor Selection

The scope of this section must be restricted to the Production
and Publication functions. The ISE is not a "vendor" with
regard to that section (see B.25) and treating the RSE as a
vendor leads to recursion. The list starting "The process to
select and contract..." does make that restriction, but it is
unclear from the title or first two paragraphs. Changing the
title line to "Vendor Selection for the Production and
Publisher Functions" would solve much of the problem.

I believe that vendor selection should be performed in
conjunction with the RSOC as well as the Streams (and the IAB
separate from its specific Stream role) -or- that the Streams
should not be singled out for special attention in that

Note that there is a risk that involving too many parties in
the vendor selection process (as with any of the other
processes described in, or implied by, this document) could
leave a potential RSE candidate with the impression that there
are too many cooks stirring the proverbial broth and/or a
reporting/ approval process that could make it impossible to
get anything done even while the RSE is held responsible for
doing it.

Probably the second clause of the key sentence in the second
paragraph should be "... and takes input from the stream
managers and the community into account". That paragraph, with
or without this suggested editorial change, conveys a rather
different impression than "done in cooperation with...", which
could imply that Streams and IAOC must agree to the results.

I am not certain what "establishes the Selection Committee"
means. It seems to me that the selection process should be
largely under the control of the RSE or RSOC even though the
IAOC has an important voice. If that is not done, the RSE has
no real control despite nominally chairing the committee.
Indeed, being chair might impose a burden of impartiality and
balance that would prevent the RSE from taking a practical
leadership role. Similarly, "other members selected by the
RSOC and the IAOC" seems right but leaves the door open for
multiple interpretations of which body is really in charge of
the committee, especially if appointees disagree on selections
or even strategies. I believe we have "running code" to
demonstrate that is a real risk even when the IAB controls the
appointment model.

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by Bernard_Aboba@…

  • Owner set to jmh@…

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by jmh@…

Based on email and face-to-face IAB discussion, no change is being made to the subject text.

comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by jmh@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

The title change to clarify scope was applied as an editorial matter. The remaining substance was not applied. Whether this constitutes "fixed" or "wontfix" is probably in teh eye of the beholder.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.