Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

Given the number of lists copied here, I'd like to make just one
observation, in reply to Julian's assertion, so that people who haven't
been following the discussions on the xml2rfc-dev list in the last half
of 2018 have a bit more data to work with:

On 2020-03-02 19:19, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW, the fact that *you* do not know the answer is kind of scary.
>>
> 
> I expect that one of the things to come out of the upcoming discussions for
> the future of the RSE roll will be where decisions are formally held and
> what the right level of independence is with respect to the RSE role.
> 
>> It's now something like 9 months since I tried to draw attention to the
>> current mess, and there seems absolutely no measurable progress on this
>> issue since

At this point, people should be aware that the reason we haven't made progress
in determining a revised specification is that when I started to feed back
issues to the discussion list, Julian was sufficiently obstructionist in
his responses to many proposed adjustments that there was absolutely no hope
of both having that extended conversation and at the same time producing a
tool release that would let the RPC carry out their planned transition.

I deplore the situation we have, but the primary reason we are in this
situation is that sensible discussion and progress in resolving proposed
changes was killed by an Not-Invented-Here attitude from the v3 design team
members active on the discussion list in the autumn of 2018, with Julian
the most active in preventing any progress at all from taking place on some
issues.

	Henrik

Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

Attachment: signature.asc