IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Mon, 16 September 2019 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71424120124 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 OYx-l1aKjniw for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB1AA120132 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FBBB8140C; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BF5B81405 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L6VZyzB3O_sr for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0C0FB8140A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A1E80393 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:20:35 -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 u8J0LjZPk-iC for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:20:35 -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 B5ABA80093 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:20:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:20:34 -0700
References: <156814308493.22374.12964350262219210658.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e9a47208-c847-85a3-ba1b-2135da1e1b1b@nthpermutation.com> <CA+9kkMAeuokjeraHuL2KJt8REqhxnR2Gow90bZgeazV6GEN78A@mail.gmail.com> <c182bdf6-f592-b512-32ba-6a439f03c16f@nthpermutation.com> <CA+9kkMAFGe5pFMWJnbLP1gKT1KGm50faQqWc1_bViDPnib9oSQ@mail.gmail.com> <320B79B1F7F7631266F4C8D5@PSB> <CA+9kkMAGW=RhCmoF=-MgsrNn_cmmYJoZ22-kNRJwwQX6ZEJujg@mail.gmail.com> <825987F9-B4DF-48F3-9A8B-6DAFC9AF1AF5@comcast.net> <1d7947d4-a2e3-967f-35fb-a14b135a5e16@cs.tcd.ie> <4645f25c-9f9f-2c4f-97c4-76909a2cdae5@comcast.net> <932F3FE9704669D2FCC39917@PSB>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <932F3FE9704669D2FCC39917@PSB>
Message-Id: <B7049288-04D1-4409-AE6F-603EED71E10B@encrypted.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

<massive snip>

(Speaking for myself)

FWIW, this thread feels unwarranted at best. As Ted has pointed out, periodic requests for feedback have been requested for some time, this is nothing new. As Stephen points out, the IAB is not the devil, and if you think they are, well you have recourses open to you. I don't think anyone expects negative feedback to come in that would cause Adrian to not continue on. However, it seems to me that asking for the feedback seems to be a proverbial sin (as if someone is out to get him??) and it occurs to me that NOT asking for the feedback could be the same thing (they aren't given the community a chance to weigh in!). Seriously speaking, feedback is a good thing, and without having checked with Adrian first, my guess is he would welcome it. Constructive feedback helps us all  grow, and no one can change what you don't like if you don't tell them... and conversely, knowing that someone appreciates what you're doing and how you're doing it has tremendous value, too. Let the man get his ju
 stly dues, and if I might suggest, spend some time writing even longer emails telling him how awesome he's doing, and submit them to the IAB as requested.

</2 cents>
Sarah	
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email