Re: [Rfced-future] Scope and IETF 108 proposals

[Nevil Brownlee <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin:
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

Of course, any suggestions for changes/improvements/etc to that draft are
welcome :-)

Cheers, Nevil

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:43 AM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, at 07:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 24-Jun-20 19:54, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > > We don't need a single person (or contracted entity, if that includes
> more than one person) to be given the task of determining strategy.  If we
> need a strategy to serve our community, then maybe that community should
> setting and owning that strategy.  Not indirectly, via an appointed
> custodian, but directly.
> >
> > I don't understand how that would work in the absence of a group and a
> > group leader to determine what the community is (since it's not the
> > IETF) and what the community's rough consensus is. Who would they be?
> > In my book, the RSE and the RFC Series Board.
>
> I don't think that is necessarily the case.
>
> The process that we're following has the same requirements and
> challenges.  It has leadership.  Two leaders in fact, which is more than
> twice as good as relying on a single person.  It has open participation.
> (I don't know what RFC Series Board is, but it implies a closed group, just
> as RSE implies an individual.)
>
> Speaking strictly about strategy, the structure of what we have here is
> just about as good as we will get in all the ways that matter.
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>


-- 
-----------------------------------
Nevil Brownlee, Taupo, NZ