IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Fri, 13 September 2019 18:05 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 135F5120121 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 KPcJrjHb_SdR for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:41 -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 15FA012011C for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AC9B81881; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:34 -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 CBD9DB81881 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:33 -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 sSiVM0FP6B_P for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3F28B81880 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9340280093; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:05:37 -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 ah2Dnn4ciuHO; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:05:37 -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 A78408007D; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:05:34 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <A6757275-5977-43C3-9EDD-B01FD550E61E@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:05:33 -0700
Message-Id: <72E579AD-70C1-427C-B544-E4A53288CFB3@encrypted.net>
References: <E0AA9720-A0BF-486C-AFD6-0675FDF1D0A3@encrypted.net> <A6757275-5977-43C3-9EDD-B01FD550E61E@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Erm... no...

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.

Thanks,
Sarah


> On Sep 13, 2019, at 9:44 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 13, 2019, at 11:34, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> wrote:
>> You can't beat up the IAB and RSOC for steering the process in some (potential) nefarious way, then effectively do the exact same and ask the community to bless it in the week left of a comment period.
> 
> The way I am reading this is that you are saying that changes as a result of comments made during the comment period are not expected to change the outcome. Is that what you intended to communicate?

_______________________________________________
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