IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 20:38 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 5F2B612082A for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
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 zUxZp3p3HbKq for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:54 -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 3962512020A for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9117DB80DCC; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:47 -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 9BE15B80DCD for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 c10WaHbnMyWl for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652BAB80DC8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id i1so9952822pfa.6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oi2OVySIpoIbudTe6MXZfMPehANIxBqMuQ0Kp9uG2Fw=; b=IGgMxOWRuTQiLX1fztYCi/nT6AwnTSbpQwR2vXTklkLpgtjzYi49WoVX9GVbbFqWH9 8vD1AcWgm00DCta/3lJ8t+kEbFozRqh2zluqlnCkcXTNkynHuwB245qzUXvjI9eop4Zu QnzTVX64zvg3IOhnYdlNGWeBMMhx3L+zEcZO6AzU3xKhC76iEcAgtuwNq98KAdbFiDdE 2PRdIkBJGXeAunrcOZxvk0jdv3dRIJs2aPbAlSAgiv18iGtHSJHAtu7THs271A39WSrp SliBeU2CD1HGNcgFnVomWGn9a9usU5Mp/mgcxubugQkQAksvoWiGjLYB2IoxVzoyUCm5 b0tA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oi2OVySIpoIbudTe6MXZfMPehANIxBqMuQ0Kp9uG2Fw=; b=oR87vkyso9m6jjTk+mqr7ln2DqmEI8EsAOBEP+5zJUwQwNsJWhCFuXJwYR/thdvOFI CNAqP6bXl0i8Y+KbxwljPbatBwQf5Xj8hatyJc0XORRUbH29X3Kn6fp8GjM7IW504syr Rn48uXaWbRfMIHiuIHnB6mkpmtlK+BKVmrXs8gqjjf3BhMmfi14uiMQQWn/AWxaMfbd8 lNi4MYUab45yvMyruDRrREbgCl2QUXFdvWzhOgYoxBa8Ucvf+vTmERmL2EXOfbrP+mRJ U8QuEgGrrKX0FvMp95Gny6yQqU5yMD2QLXzNOHOgzYDMFJGlZML62NIHmEAMZcNDOuxL xsow==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVPeQL6dmYfdZUAfF+cAsW/2Ve8vhTXV6+h0E+oo/m6jnQDAPVR yWk1AsIq6LRq9mZo9tcpaoE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyqzZml38BsP280PfgA156NltCCZVZaucyStf1F/3BkqSccDPU2my6qw7SaoVW0dBuxkeNgFw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:c016:: with SMTP id h22mr178529pgg.362.1568407128997; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (82.206.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.206.82]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b15sm29524171pfo.134.2019.09.13.13.38.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: 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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13d415f5-6d35-a283-36c6-f5d6fc3e5155@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:38:47 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <81A575F5-B475-473B-8E9C-08589485755F@fugue.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
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>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, iab@iab.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email