Re: [Rfced-future] ** Consensus check on part of Issue 12: Is the person an advisor (RSA) or an Executive Editor (RSE) **

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 27 November 2020 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 9F9983A0E8E for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:01:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 MhZjmkGoAknP for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:01:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51CF03A0E8C for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:01:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CjRqf0Lq9z6G9fH for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:01:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1606510862; bh=Qc9guMbMk8t0A+1V4ImGilTfNgz/S554g3f0h/Pmdn4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Sm8B7pq+lgdTu+KIHyt/W/MH1Y98ZkztfOO6S1hETU5r+OMpLZ6alliZe44wkMZiF /DjoI/yCq41DTcxmkuaCxR1Ci4+j8SBBibEPqQ7HnJOi4StRBFbwEnOs0cbWmh18Ho qdKp16mhIHtd6ezT5flSnruLat8ugRdeYi27CTM0=
X-Quarantine-ID: <0W5ASLSTvrpx>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CjRqd2f5Yz6G8pH for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:01:01 -0800 (PST)
To: rfced-future@iab.org
References: <4A34B713-E013-4A36-9296-694F07EC5AC5@cisco.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <7f6844fe-9cc3-0b16-380d-35009278a05d@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:01:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A34B713-E013-4A36-9296-694F07EC5AC5@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/5LZCim6XUcVMBeSp7TzMD2llMFU>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] ** Consensus check on part of Issue 12: Is the person an advisor (RSA) or an Executive Editor (RSE) **
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: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 21:01:07 -0000

To me, almost all of these depend upon the construction of the "stragei 
group".  Depending upon how we conclude that should be constructed and 
operated, different answers as to the relationship to the senior 
technical publishing advisor (or whatever we call the person) would seem 
to make sense.

In the extreme case, if the strategic group is an IETF working group, 
with chairs without background in technical publishing, and no mechanism 
better than the IETF list has to ground the discussions in reality, I 
have trouble seeing why anyone with the relevant skills would take the 
job, or even if they did now they could accomplish it.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/27/2020 10:36 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> As mentioned in the minutes:
> 
> Please let us know if you disagree with any of the following:
> 
> 
> • The chairs think that there is likely rough consensus that role of the chair and the RS[EA] should be split.
> 
> • The chairs think we have consensus that that person can raise issues to the strategic group
> 
> • The chairs think there is likely rough consensus that the person does not make strategic decisions but that those are decided by the strategic body
> 
> • The chairs think there is likely rough consensus that the person does not direct the RPC/REP.
> 
> 
> This does not resolve all of issue 12, of course.
> 
>