Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-rseme-00.txt

I also agree with this, and would also like to note that for *chair* of the
program we actually want someone who is good at making sure multiple
perspectives are heard and helps bring things to consensus more than
someone with a lot of institutional knowledge. Some of those people are
certainly former I* Chairs, but a number of people who we often call on for
this kind of duty are notand some of them are comparatively recent IETF
participants.

-Ekr

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:29 AM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
wrote:

>
> On 10/30/2019 5:39 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> > Hi Heather, IAB,
> >
> > I realize I missed the window to comment on this before the -01 was
> > published, so feel free to disregard what I say below.
> >
> > I think the line "Past IAB or IETF chairs would likely be good
> > choices,” describing candidates to chair the program, is ill-advised.
> > It reinforces what I think is a perilous notion that old-timers are
> > best suited to do tasks in the community because they have been doing
> > similar tasks for a long time. I realize there are caveats in the
> > sentence, but to the extent that having it in there then creates some
> > onus on the IAB to explain itself if it does not choose past chairs to
> > chair this program, I think it would be better to leave this out. It
> > is already mentioned elsewhere in the document that one participant
> > suggested that past chairs be central to this process, which seems
> > sufficient to document the fact that someone thought this was a good
> idea.
>
>
> I agree with Alissa there. I notice that someone proposed that in the
> minutes of the 3rd conference call. Minuting that proposal is fine, but
> endorsing it is something entirely different.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>