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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

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.
>>
>