IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 F12B812018B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:47 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 otUEmFRlYJuA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E06A12081D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id d17so43142043ios.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=r3QVb9cVP2juqpRKytobWpKfJrv3a9Le6+zbq3MQ86w=; b=ywYJ2UYJK+6xaOgTyUPH89p5VWdjMFGBSwMzaWDbgWyjy27ri+TFhNqTDVozCGYaQA kle0pBM2ktyyeGNweCEXJSmjo1vcmEuFQB7eiS3DzxjZEEVE57caYn59lgXu+9yYXUpa fhgM22x9XgtoIAuv17iOQKB22TJmFoA74J5R7vg/ve3FdjPK5aM+RHprK1b5r5wz2sXz RWiZSdsPau/UUJcoTe4I2MXTfIQYZ3ObTYfFpTMRSe8xcdyGWdYeJ+dtzWSoRgJPjAAA oxgWTkN4VTsijXfB5Yjf4oTgVgzXG2t3dLfcZ+2lnPMFwJwAwXEtqGznliGiRKmTH3tv m8mQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=r3QVb9cVP2juqpRKytobWpKfJrv3a9Le6+zbq3MQ86w=; b=aDIhzKqPG+dpc8HvPRxWIZojjV7YMlkCeVJ///k+Cm8yzn6IZ2+78At6JO8/quYyZ+ MCj2ezgMj7O+j9IwkxJrAuVTlxRft9NlOT7XDpg7B87kcpI5d3qftX0OygQeklL93PfI pE8Ky0hr2yjkAv5WRfKSEhaK6pOmy7fEFVg3DZvs0E4+jl0nSx4AxdT3TtU8EUoHNKOS YgkR1tPjr9upiK/WwtI6uDxOh8y19GeVabhkN9J6p8vDyEGNu9Unml9pxuWLGwQrGYbP VAhBz0o4IqdYM0mDPZHOTv7i+ZFdV64hYk3LSR8XTGyJ5A33zpE6A2JiaDn6gbZHulv0 FwqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV3ju8qops6Xjv5bIFsxLTewQUA34KCGz0HO0vqWcpiRmVSYUxA 7WtOXdSvVrWZX73smY3Vx8xzfw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxSDajkzQk4WIBwxi1zPSLswi/VLhrPciL3TvnQnL091xQXA6ZriEcqh9aDyvcCB599YJaIdw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:88:: with SMTP id v8mr1346837jao.97.1568403164352; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.2.181] (hiltonsuites53.h.subnet.rcn.com. [207.229.133.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n12sm22556689ioc.19.2019.09.13.12.32.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <81A575F5-B475-473B-8E9C-08589485755F@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_163A0CCF-5E61-42BC-BC1D-2F90D8D1E188"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.5\))
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:32:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <72E579AD-70C1-427C-B544-E4A53288CFB3@encrypted.net>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, iab@iab.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
References: <E0AA9720-A0BF-486C-AFD6-0675FDF1D0A3@encrypted.net> <A6757275-5977-43C3-9EDD-B01FD550E61E@fugue.com> <72E579AD-70C1-427C-B544-E4A53288CFB3@encrypted.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UtrMVOuW7oWn6VXJoyLoGg5TGOE>
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 19:32:52 -0000

On Sep 13, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> wrote:
> 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.

Okay, I understand where you are coming from.  That said, effectively what you are saying is that Mike’s proposal can’t happen, and that we need to get rough consensus on your proposal.  Given the pressing nature of the situation, I understand why you are maintaining that position; however, it is a fairly unfortunate position to have to take.  Is there consensus for this position?   Who is calling consensus?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email