Subject: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj1

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 21:55:03 -0400

As a general comment on the document and its structure:  The document 
does a reasonable job of describing the control process, but fails at 
describing how to achieve "success" of the RFC Editor process or even 
describing what "success" looks like.  While I know we have not yet come 
to an agreement (and may not) about what success is, there ought to be a 
structured place in this document that describes it, and the meta 
process for achieving it.

I.e., the fact that the RSWG can originate various proposals may be of 
interest, but having an overarching agreed upon skeleton on which the 
proposals may be laid and against which the RSAB can evaluate said 
proposals seems to be critical preventing a failure of the process.

Mike

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:42:42 +0200

Issue 47

> On 27 Apr 2021, at 03:55, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> As a general comment on the document and its structure:  The document does a reasonable job of describing the control process, but fails at describing how to achieve "success" of the RFC Editor process or even describing what "success" looks like.  While I know we have not yet come to an agreement (and may not) about what success is, there ought to be a structured place in this document that describes it, and the meta process for achieving it.
> 
> 
> I.e., the fact that the RSWG can originate various proposals may be of interest, but having an overarching agreed upon skeleton on which the proposals may be laid and against which the RSAB can evaluate said proposals seems to be critical preventing a failure of the process.