Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 7:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> With that fix, Mike's draft looks pretty good to me.
> 

I agree - this is much closer to what I’d expect to see if I was looking at this job as a potential candidate 


> Regards
>   Brian
> 
>> On 09-Sep-19 06:57, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2019 2:25 PM, RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> 
>>> With my ISE hat on...
>>> 
>>>> I also added an "optional deliverable" to cover April fool's RFCs.
>>> While the ISE in some sense sits under the RSE, I believe that the 4/1
>>> RFCs are the responsibility of the ISE, not the RSE.
>>> 
>>> Operationally, the ISE has always asked the for an opinion on candidate
>>> documents, but the final decision has been with the ISE.
>>> 
>>> I don't think you need to include this in the SoW.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Adrian
>> 
>> OOPS!   Noted and easy enough to remove.
>> 
>> Let's see where/if this goes first...
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>