Re: [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:29 AM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree with John that we should delay this, but not for the same reasons.  My reason is that the IAB has not completed its work.   The announcement (and the community agreement on which that announcement was made) indicated the requirement for at least two chairs to represent multiple points of view, as well as the appointment of a Liaison from the IAB.  The appointment of a single chair does not satisfy the agreement.
> 

Plus one to this - we need to begin with as much trust as we can gather and meeting the community based agreements fir this work seems like a minimum requirement.

> If the IAB declines to appoint a second chair from the current volunteers, it should re-open the call for volunteers and arm twist until it gets sufficient volunteers.  Until then, this program has not been formed.  Or at least that's my opinion, and I think an appeal indicating the IAB was not following its own rules would be successful.
> 
> On another point: In a different note Eliot indicated that he wanted a co-chair so that the IAB could replace him if he went off the rails.  Again, working back to the community discussion hosted by Heather, this program is meant to be as independent as is feasible from the IAB.  Once appointed, the chairs should not fear replacement by the IAB unless there is sufficient public community urging to do so.   
> 
> So I await eagerly the appointment of the second chair and I believe that Nevil would be an acceptable choice to most of us who are interested in that topic.  I also await the designation of the Liaison.
> 

Again - plus one on the Liaison. This is anew set of IAB members so a little time allowed for them to sort this out should also be helpful. Another reason to delay any substantive discussion.

> Later, Mike
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/30/2020 1:07 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> Thanks for your comments.  Please see below.
>> 
>>> On 30 Mar 2020, at 18:07, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On a slightly different topic, the issues associated with the
>>> 2020-2021 Nomcom and what, if any, changes are needed to the
>>> eligibility requirements for the future are still very active on
>>> the IETF and eligibility-discuss lists (in addition to many
>>> other issues, of course).  For those of us who can only put in a
>>> limited number of hours a week on IETF-related work, paying
>>> careful attention to both sets of threads might be nearly
>>> impossible.  Much as I hate to see this process delayed, would
>>> it be sensible to postpone active discussions here for a week or
>>> two in the hope that the other ones will settle down?
>> 
>> 
>> I appreciate your desire to take the time necessary to understand others’ views, and to contribute in a meaningful way, and that you have time pressures, as I am sure we all do.  Thank you for having chimed in with your views; it is now for others to do so.  If this list volume really becomes a problem, please do let me know.
>> 
>> Eliot
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future