IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RSOC name

"Stan Kalisch" <stan@glyphein.mailforce.net> Mon, 29 July 2019 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <stan@glyphein.mailforce.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 503501203C9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailforce.net header.b=hleCf9hV; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=FJpGcT01
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 0W8L9DJKjzkx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A40C612012B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540CD220CB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:38:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap6 ([10.202.2.56]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:38:04 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailforce.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=kE26TCmzC36pyOC1sszU/Bu9lS/D2oV Yc9ZZXW9iKEE=; b=hleCf9hVnKXeT7PT4qDgUeYyqvbjyeKPRFVQU+KbZ74bahl /5k3YH0bV/CRYQ8zG40VOPFMlFV7P6KC3P88SkQk+e+02iHRgHbzsqG7eZRbF7kr AXyUg0lMwrp240TkIDmPkBHos0VpzR+T2bqogfPnsrDxMMlGd5kW9CsdwZ7mGCHy mYqnxZ2OdbGguGRyuaH76uvJqR+YYuSVoxfJeiUDmCAwOqFxpTqIDH1Cjjbt4OkE Qml+P5KUJc3t2w7ydbCXMgwO8rfq3ZIky38HkAwHNU2z4+LjT89Ls0knrAt0nFUa J8UQ+cQyi7XM06+HI/ljilw2kQLdhm3MjcGmjag==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=kE26TC mzC36pyOC1sszU/Bu9lS/D2oVYc9ZZXW9iKEE=; b=FJpGcT01gxor2EcLUoxm4x ylTSjat7ikWz3A10B6MQXovBFaIPz3nHARZ9b1EY1cO0YQuzAhK+UPy3VssyVua1 dwB36yeV5qvMgkQZh46lLOdDNRhzy0vrWTq/N2sJVOCAC2WVnFnrjOjmCSghoP1u 6W6x3NSrG1veb2MTJujytoMQknIFH6tXU8DHxCS7Rv+LaF1WYGpA7mdzFXyitS3v yhNnwIDsDtRO5PcumO9Zz7+syOaUS2WXwE+zq8YUeIGa1zU6oTpnUU1xmfivlp2/ DAwtrzYXbfACZTP/SwaxXANBQw/lNnWzI9rItj5boqZT3A6CKbObtjU4PfHanJcQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:XIM_XYUPXghvYq8OtgJI5laefV52Kkwau6snDBr78ERdI-6Oi92eDw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrledvgddvgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtre erreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfuthgrnhcumfgrlhhishgthhdfuceoshhtrghnsehglhih phhhvghinhdrmhgrihhlfhhorhgtvgdrnhgvtheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehsthgrnhesghhlhihphhgvihhnrdhmrghilhhfohhrtggvrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhs thgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:XIM_XWBP22NH1KohKb8AnupozTtc8ddlkk5GrKDUbtCi_eqgjrLmYQ> <xmx:XIM_Xb9Zx0jx7kJvmOjPpi7YLV9a8fSgWm6b9W3GYezJEzeeFZu4Jg> <xmx:XIM_XdHjgf0EuoQFVY5f6NsuwYHy3AgKn0G2qxnMv6g1cfR3JDkl5Q> <xmx:XIM_XQnIQTlMNQBur3jLmoGUQoT3WpkZv2e-s-Fvk16TeE4PvoZW9w>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id EA4581400EE; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-736-gdfb8e44-fmstable-20190718v2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <335ae182-3775-4eca-bb39-c27e6a18081a@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <acaf7251-3aa4-b3bb-e7d7-0fad4662295f@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CAF4+nEGw2vk9wG3RLsfmY1XgDO8PYtHbbHSrph=L4XqWW33e+A@mail.gmail.com> <0AA1B7AF-DD8D-42AC-90C4-1C3BEC73E568@comcast.net> <acaf7251-3aa4-b3bb-e7d7-0fad4662295f@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:38:01 -0400
From: Stan Kalisch <stan@glyphein.mailforce.net>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RSOC name
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="57118fbec6a945c1aae26526cf7c09f4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nVdz9q80ePRVSZdGVFS0UEUI8X8>
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:38:14 -0000

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, at 7:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Mike,
> 
> On 30/07/2019 00:22, Mike StJohns wrote:
> > It’s not so much what we call it as what they think they’re allowed to do. 
> 
> That seems mostly like snark.

Speaking as an observer, it didn't seem that way to me.


Stan

> I don't have a problem
> with you doing that myself but I would point out that
> it kinda kills a bunch of arguments that you yourself
> might want to propose for some better path.
> 
> If your "they" is valid, then it'd be as valid a pseudo-
> criticism against anything you yourself may propose.
> 
> S.
> 
> PS: Don's mail doesn't have that kind of problem.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Just saying - Mike
> > 
> > Sent from my iPad
> > 
> >> On Jul 29, 2019, at 19:15, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think the IAB project model fits very well for the RFC Series
> >> and that it should have different governance for which I have some
> >> ideas. But I wanted to talk about something else: the power of
> >> nomenclature.
> >>
> >> The key word in RFC Series Oversight Committee is "Oversight". What do
> >> people think when they hear "oversight"? They think that a large part
> >> the job of whoever has "oversight" is to review and criticize. No
> >> doubt the fine print clarifies things but every time someone thinks
> >> about or volunteers for or is appointed to the RSOC, it rings the
> >> "oversight" gong. Of course there are plenty of worse words than
> >> "oversight". I suppose it could have been called the RFC Series
> >> Management Committee or something...
> >>
> >> What if everything else we the same, but it had been called the RFC
> >> Series Support Committee? And everytime someone thought about or
> >> volunteer for or was appointed to the committee they were reminded
> >> that this is about supporting the RFC Series?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Donald
> >> ===============================
> >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> >> 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
> >> d3e3e3@gmail.com
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> *Attachments:*
>  * 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
>  * signature.asc

v2.40.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status