Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals
Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> Mon, 29 June 2020 13:46 UTC
Return-Path: <caw@heapingbits.net>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A303A0EF1 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 06:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=heapingbits.net header.b=Ka1yJ+A9; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ItcUje77
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 TnNeRUpiDn6d for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 06:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B84413A0EE1 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 06:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA855C0120 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap4 ([10.202.2.54]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:46:53 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heapingbits.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=A+f5eCsiv+6jx+ziJf5BqBnO2BQpO7O a9PYzzE8yimU=; b=Ka1yJ+A9P/oItU9z5huO04ZSd91fqcGJVvVmS0i3Xys1Joi 15oQ9uSR4takLD11FWiwSDqfv07uwILdVIYffVUSXuszPWZ8vtTco2DpR9rSwEyN AiX9EK+Qpm5I7vmjL0QCtrstMKD3yuh5quUn02J+gGBdA37Ro1nqO8MOvg/I71zV 8CsfoloWz1fwpF7pLzBrgyVZDWXy5njHbStzRGoH8+obgpagYu5b0ZIJfAZ83loa zf58Q9tOKOaPBCJf+vcETFsaUkb0DhldJ5flLOue2v2fwuuAv+eva2w2Z4uW7Vhb Em8uTBeaVjmhBTIlBR6+uAosZVrkkxpm57L3o2Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=A+f5eC siv+6jx+ziJf5BqBnO2BQpO7Oa9PYzzE8yimU=; b=ItcUje77TbTFC6D+NxlqWs xVNZNtYz4RJ7o7VRalckuOe4q/3ZICCsbFS2A2IBi/arHBNHojwzV+9ab4mNHTSJ d/bUVab1EjSshqrsDQiPZYfVUJOBGM0jl0qdNhsImY7XkgT3zD+X/fsotBaniUk9 fCW/oXFxBmGRJhKfrdQCrn7XbeRjeGB+aAzl5SEupmyPotfWbKO/O5dkjk9ngQ2F 0brciIZU5OxPLDOZcLljq4ZWsJYT7ombik8z1+0/cSRlEY64QuGob7H6eizfuWUv cKdLdYgIlvkNWb3qSXBv8UMcVi4FLXBuGGDQHboivl+mSb4zrTVZDN6Eewbu/dxg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:zPD5XmC73TwhS4I7edPKsIMrZhcg-lg_XbOmDyJOPqQmRFnC0phaUQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudelkedgieekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfvehhrhhishhtohhphhgvrhcuhghoohgufdcuoegtrgif sehhvggrphhinhhgsghithhsrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefgieetgfevud etheffleehieevgfelleelhedtkeelueeliefhffdugeekgfelfeenucffohhmrghinhep ihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhirggsrdhorhhgpdhmnhhothdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegtrgifsehhvggrphhinhhgsghi thhsrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:zPD5XggkN2VrRTho7uGKevVs4NtO4KYFK9vRAecvdhRacGhwCl0lPw> <xmx:zPD5XpnfmcHDIAuLvZ8OSbR9nNOYfLnkgLWS7pp8nEzP9MOlh-OIdA> <xmx:zPD5XkwWV8EMo9bk5JTK4YPAFhAf_N0G6SspS9nzy_8Suz1iVe34vQ> <xmx:zfD5XtBZS1ySMM317z85Z9UIC_lL-aA0Z5-vKEbrSwpfdZq6HwoSrw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id A99AD3C00A1; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:46:52 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-576-gfe2cd66-fm-20200629.001-gfe2cd668
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <91a4e537-dd46-43e4-958d-5c9811d62f63@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPPVPv8Bt9LSP5JBxvJ6G=Osc-fWsk4r14remFOL+SE8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <62A4C70D-419A-4DE3-8A54-60EB2B064EF2@brianrosen.net> <8c626e3e-1700-46fe-90b3-26b9c1296788@www.fastmail.com> <1b6cf5e6-2c16-d839-08dd-d005d4fdbc60@gmail.com> <3678427d-6496-45c7-bd1b-14d7f860c971@www.fastmail.com> <CACOFP=iAzB+hrtZcu4yaDv9mpmxSybGTc-cugWC2Hv==-zTTdg@mail.gmail.com> <cfd9512d-b61e-4438-9ce3-102f6ddaebe7@www.fastmail.com> <befe8914-996a-d4f0-f9ef-cc49d882839c@joelhalpern.com> <dc41e1eb-35c6-b678-65e2-db638f330018@nthpermutation.com> <3EDDC9C7-BA91-4E18-AB1C-8E77E95627B2@mnot.net> <065dd700-9666-6c88-5016-0668ed966884@gmail.com> <CABcZeBPPVPv8Bt9LSP5JBxvJ6G=Osc-fWsk4r14remFOL+SE8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 06:46:32 -0700
From: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
To: rfced-future@iab.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/0-vY3_r7nzSiHGETG7HQQfI_I0w>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 13:46:56 -0000
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, at 6:05 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 7:01 PM Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 29-Jun-20 12:23, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > The suggestion was to have more than one more specialised role, not to promote 'leadership by committee.' This has been discussed a number of times previously, due to the very high bar created by the combination of requirements we current place on the position (as Martin mentioned). > > > > Certainly splitting the IT project management role (a.k.a. xml2rfcv3) from the Series Editor role is very desirable. A no-brainer, in fact. > > > > But anyone with experience (even as an author) with journal publishing knows that the role of an Editor, aided by an editorial board, is essential. > > Well, as it happens, I have journal publishing experience as an author, > and I'm not sure I agree with this. > > Moreover, the function of Editor of a journal is really much more like > the function of Program Committee chair in a conference. I..e., to > select the material to be published. That is not the case here. +1 -- this matches my experience as a journal author, too. Best, Chris > > If we want the RFC Series to be more than a copy shop, we need such a person. > > Well, this seems like the place to start: what do we want the RFC > Series to be. As I said earlier, I see the primary purpose to be > publishing technical specifications. The requirements for the RFC > Series to successfully fulfill that functin seem relatively modest. > > > > The board may well be small, as Nevil suggests, but part of its role is to consult the community. We have lots of running code proof that the community on its own doesn't produce consensus; we need some focus point to extract a consensus, > > And yet, as I said, we have mechanisms for getting consensus on far > more weighty decisions. The reason I might be in favor of having some > kind of board is actually to *delegate* small decisions, not as a form > of getting consensus. But that naturally produces a division of labor > in which the board makes small decisions and the community makes big > ones. > > -Ekr > > > > > and the editorial board seems like a good solution for that. > > > > Regards > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > >> On 29 Jun 2020, at 10:14 am, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 6/28/2020 7:50 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > >>> In my view, the reason we need a person to do this is that leadership by committee is essential equivalent to a recipe for disaster. And I do think we want leadership. > > >>> > > >>> Yours, > > >>> joel > > >> Strong +1 here. One of the reasons for having a senior person in this role is so that the attention paid to the strategic evolution of the series does not wax and wane based on the current hobbyhorses of the leadership or their companies, or upon other loud voices. I have no problems with those voices influencing strategy, but I have strong problems with those voices directing strategy - especially if they change directions every 6 months or a year. > > >> > > >> We've had at least 4 people with the "rare and difficult" [Aside: difficult?] combination of attributes so I'm not sure where Martin is coming from here. It may be that he doesn't agree that those are the right attributes for the role, but that's a whole other discussion. I would expect with some luck, and with an IETF that respects what an expert can bring to the role, we will be able to find someone who won't run screaming into the night after they meet us. > > >> > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On 6/28/2020 7:47 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, at 13:01, Nevil Brownlee wrote: > > >>>>> I've updated my Internet Draft to include a suggestion of what an RSEB > > >>>>> (RFC Series Editorial Board) could be structured. Take a look at > > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes-01.html > > >>>> > > >>>> This is very much not what I had in mind. We should not insist on having a role that depends on finding an individual with a rare and difficult combination of attributes. And I don't think that you can support that function by taking a program with open participation and consensus processes and reduce that to 5 people (+stream manager ex officio) who are responsible for approving strategy. > > >>>> > > >>>> Perhaps you can start by explaining why you think we need to have an individual perform these functions. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Rfced-future mailing list > > >> Rfced-future@iab.org > > >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > > > > > -- > > > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > > > > > > -- > > Rfced-future mailing list > > Rfced-future@iab.org > > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >
- [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Michael StJohns
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Bob Hinden
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Michael StJohns
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Wes Hardaker
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals John Levine
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Ted Lemon
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian Rosen
- [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF 108… Brian E Carpenter
- [Rfced-future] hiring [Scope and IETF 108 proposa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Colin Perkins
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Colin Perkins
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… S Moonesamy
- [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and IETF … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and I… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and I… Russ Housley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and I… Russ Housley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and I… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and I… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and I… Russ Housley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and I… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Rfced-future] Publication vetos [Scope and I… Larry Masinter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Nevil Brownlee
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Michael StJohns
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals John Levine
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Christopher Wood
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals John Levine
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Larry Masinter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals John R. Levine
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] "oversees" [was Scope and IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Ted Lemon
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Ted Lemon
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Ted Lemon
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC (was: … Adrian Farrel
- [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC (was: Scop… Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals John Levine
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC (was: … Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Larry Masinter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC (was: … Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC (was: … Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC (was: … Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC (was: … Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC (was: … John Levine
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC Michael StJohns
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC Jay Daley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Standing behind the RPC Brian E Carpenter