Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On Aug 31, 2019, at 5:54 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> (changing the subject line to try to avoid a nasty S/N problem)
> 
> --On Saturday, August 31, 2019 10:20 +0200 Eliot Lear
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Can the Sergeant-at-Arms please not be this trigger happy?
>> 
>> This was the focus of the discussion at the administrative
>> plenary, and deserves wide attention, in part because the
>> matter is urgent to close, given the limited period of time,
>> and quite frankly what Sarah is asking for amounts to last
>> call comments.  The IETF list has always welcomed those.  Do
>> we really need to reopen 3005 to make that point clearer?
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> I wouldn't have chosen "trigger happy" as a description, but I
> agree with Eliot and would go a bit further.  First, as he
> points out, this topic was of broad enough concern in Montreal,
> and drew enough list discussion in the prior weeks, to have
> dominated the administrative plenary. It is clearly of broad
> concern to the community and I appreciate Eliot's comparison to
> a Last Call.
> 
> There is, however, another issue: the rfc-interest list has
> traditionally focused on substantive issues with RFCs and the
> RFC Series, not personnel and administrative policies.  Pushing
> this discussion there is inconsistent with "Discussions that
> fall within the area of any working group or well established
> list" because this is not clearly within the area of that list.
> More important RFC 3005 clearly calls out "Discussion of IETF
> administrative policies" as an appropriate posting topic and
> this discussion is very much about administrative policies.
> 
> So, please reconsider your comment and back it out.  Where I
> disagree with Eliot is that, if you don't consider withdrawing
> your instruction appropriate, I think the appropriate action, at
> least in the short term, would not be to open 3005 but to appeal
> your decision.

I agree with Elliot, S. Moonesamy, and John.   The Sergeant-at-Arms email was ill considered and should be withdrawn.

Bob


> 
> thanks,
> 
>   john
> 
> 
>> On 31 Aug 2019, at 01:09, Matthew A. Miller
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Please note that discussion on the Temporary RFC Series
> Project Manager
>> SOW should occur at < [e-mail] >.  As per
> RFC 3005,
>> the general list is appropriate unless there is a more
> specific venue.
>> 
>> Information about the list, including how to subscribe, can be
> found at
>> < https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest >.
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> - Matthew A. Miller
>> Sergeant-at-Arms
> 
> 
> 
>