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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.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 25D0C1200FE; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 K0NGHujr3ABv; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A06C312006E; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h-202-242.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([158.174.202.242]:57646 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1i8sya-0007EL-1B; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:19:33 -0700
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, 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> <81A575F5-B475-473B-8E9C-08589485755F@fugue.com> <13d415f5-6d35-a283-36c6-f5d6fc3e5155@gmail.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, iab@iab.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Message-ID: <f211bb42-feb6-72ad-3460-debdb39b4c63@levkowetz.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:19:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13d415f5-6d35-a283-36c6-f5d6fc3e5155@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iDA65gfIbvJpG7OFPqnrMavBTplg8kj1C"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 158.174.202.242
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ietf@ietf.org, iab@iab.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, john-ietf@jck.com, sbanks@encrypted.net, mellon@fugue.com, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nmuU4RBDtEZV5rdyG-YMmxUVXW4>
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 21:19:38 -0000

On 2019-09-13 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 14-Sep-19 07:32, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net <mailto: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?
> 
> Actually, I'm not understanding why the RSOC couldn't just decide it
> prefers Mike's proposal as a simpler way of obtaining the desired
> goal of an acting RSE to keep things moving along without mortgaging
> the future. I don't see that violating the RSOC's role, in these
> unusual circumstances.

That sounds right to me.

	Henrik

> As for who calls consensus, this raises the old question of what is
> the RFC community of interest and who speaks for it. But in practice,
> it's the RSOC as the IAB's delegate that has been doing so for
> previous RSE appointments.
> 
> Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>