IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Fri, 13 September 2019 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
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 C5615120110 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 tHbNv2DkNBBk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 453CE12011C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9340280093; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aws.hosed.org
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ah2Dnn4ciuHO; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.69] (c-73-71-250-98.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.71.250.98]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A78408007D; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:05:34 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <A6757275-5977-43C3-9EDD-B01FD550E61E@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:33 -0700
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, iab@iab.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <72E579AD-70C1-427C-B544-E4A53288CFB3@encrypted.net>
References: <E0AA9720-A0BF-486C-AFD6-0675FDF1D0A3@encrypted.net> <A6757275-5977-43C3-9EDD-B01FD550E61E@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ScmHfMsA5CJ6FNJp8Mu3dPx6El4>
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:05:41 -0000

Erm... no...

I'm saying you can't accuse folks of jury rigging the process with their wants and desires but then do the same. The SOW proposal was to cover the tactical, NOT slide in how someone wants to see the reporting structure work. How and where the RSE reports to should be a part of the community conversation, and I'm asserting that you can't have the community conversation by providing a new SOW with a week left on the comment period. I'm asserting that the conversation will take longer than a conversation, and that it should be a part of the broader scope of what and how we want things to change.

Thanks,
Sarah


> On Sep 13, 2019, at 9:44 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 13, 2019, at 11:34, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> wrote:
>> You can't beat up the IAB and RSOC for steering the process in some (potential) nefarious way, then effectively do the exact same and ask the community to bless it in the week left of a comment period.
> 
> The way I am reading this is that you are saying that changes as a result of comments made during the comment period are not expected to change the outcome. Is that what you intended to communicate?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email