IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: letters from Ted & Alissa

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155361200D7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vtojco0wKSa5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80FFB1200C7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1himLm-0004lp-Gd; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 20:59:34 +0000
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 13:59:33 -0700
Message-ID: <m2r276u956.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: letters from Ted & Alissa
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDiXGce7bypYYtWxRxS6PLNUM_KYt6bmRMfx6hN8uK=+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMCi=h1W15T-rt3MAu3NHBYdEaycUPw4XhRDBVNL4k_Xrg@mail.gmail.com> <BB4BA38F-B384-46A3-866C-4A61F4C7C681@sobco.com> <CA+9kkMDiXGce7bypYYtWxRxS6PLNUM_KYt6bmRMfx6hN8uK=+w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/G58bLfCAuOcO0d2zGbI1wafvrEs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 20:59:38 -0000

> I think there is an underlying structural problem in RFC 6635.  It
> presents two different views of the RSE and those views have some
> inherent conflicts.  One of those views is of a senior technical
> contributor to the community who is expected to both manage the
> evolution of the series and represent the value of the RFC series to
> others.  The other view is of a contractor whose role is defined in a
> set of contracts and extensions and who is overseen by a set of unpaid
> volunteers.

these are not in conflict, though they seem to be able to cause some
confusion in the iab and rsoc.

sometimes we have to pay senior professionals.  to do so, we often
have contracts.  this does not make them fungible or less professional
and deserving of serious respect.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email