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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 5:23 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> 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).
>

This aside, I don't really understand the "leadership by committee"
argument here. Here at the IETF we design protocols which will run on
billions of nodes using a collaborative consensus-based process. I find it
surprising that people think we can't use this process for the much lower
stakes question of how our documents ought to be shaped.
-Ekr



> > On 29 Jun 2020, at 10:14 am, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
> 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>