IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 19:32 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 F285412082E for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 (body has been altered)" header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 mfyWc0O1VVQG for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:49 -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 65F56120105 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8DA2B80D39; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:42 -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 70AFFB80D39 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:41 -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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 zOwkcIDPncqW for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B3E8B80D38 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id g5so1770670ioe.1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=r3QVb9cVP2juqpRKytobWpKfJrv3a9Le6+zbq3MQ86w=; b=ywYJ2UYJK+6xaOgTyUPH89p5VWdjMFGBSwMzaWDbgWyjy27ri+TFhNqTDVozCGYaQA kle0pBM2ktyyeGNweCEXJSmjo1vcmEuFQB7eiS3DzxjZEEVE57caYn59lgXu+9yYXUpa fhgM22x9XgtoIAuv17iOQKB22TJmFoA74J5R7vg/ve3FdjPK5aM+RHprK1b5r5wz2sXz RWiZSdsPau/UUJcoTe4I2MXTfIQYZ3ObTYfFpTMRSe8xcdyGWdYeJ+dtzWSoRgJPjAAA oxgWTkN4VTsijXfB5Yjf4oTgVgzXG2t3dLfcZ+2lnPMFwJwAwXEtqGznliGiRKmTH3tv m8mQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=r3QVb9cVP2juqpRKytobWpKfJrv3a9Le6+zbq3MQ86w=; b=PA5KkBndmsQWWy+yZDHd2ua9VXXNjNdiQF6DZB6Naom8WL8XfEOM+sBe2cpro0Gn44 2FZ82wh+hLRSckFaPBh8C/P5Bc7NxzH10hr2JWSJnbXt0AUgnW3GC3o1JZeNyURLNvL5 oTRJCQGjdS0vnx6cHVGlW0bV3G2UYIuC0SRcVQiA5+wKjpRbcoh4AreLT0+94mVxYY/q JoKslhpD9CeHr382Vp34x86PmIxHuFkxKYuNscZoovrvjXC7lPvxjtr7ddVi1KZYfsTF jjiALsRKzh9M3A3qaRPgw7YtrLtRZCEsgvrirhis+Wt6dixJ3jg2NLxl4ZMIzWqAD1X/ gyGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU5XSGICDpu10z1W0TDNL3UBIfpSVbvUs+CPqW09q7JWWjORFqM 9+llJ7xg/9SBoe2mJD8l+NqM2Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxSDajkzQk4WIBwxi1zPSLswi/VLhrPciL3TvnQnL091xQXA6ZriEcqh9aDyvcCB599YJaIdw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:88:: with SMTP id v8mr1346837jao.97.1568403164352; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.2.181] (hiltonsuites53.h.subnet.rcn.com. [207.229.133.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n12sm22556689ioc.19.2019.09.13.12.32.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <81A575F5-B475-473B-8E9C-08589485755F@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.5\))
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:32:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <72E579AD-70C1-427C-B544-E4A53288CFB3@encrypted.net>
To: 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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.5)
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1598902918146664336=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Sep 13, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Sarah Banks <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?


_______________________________________________
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