Russ,
Thanks.
I see it now.
Nevertheless for the untrained eye as mine (and that only scans the
important parts of some emails), it would be good to add something like:
"Requirements for the position are stated in RFC 6635".
And probably it won't hurt to add at least a summary of those "job"
requirements.
Cheers,
as
On 6/25/13 2:46 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Arturo:
>
> The original call for nominations did this in two ways. First, it pointed to RFC 6635, which defines the role of the RSOC. Second, it included a list of the top four items that the RSOC is focusing on right now.
>
>> The current focus of the RSOC is on:
>>
>> 1) Overseeing and assisting the RSE in the process of determining how to
>> best meet the requirements in draft-iab-rfcformatreq.
>>
>> 2) Working with the RSE and the IAB to develop policies n the creation of
>> new RFC Series streams.
>>
>> 3) Periodic reviews of the RFSE performance.
>>
>> 4) Working with the RSE and the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
>> (IAOC) on the statements of work for contracts related to the RFC
>> Production Center and RFC Publisher.
>
> Russ
>
>
> On 6/25/13 5:10 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> I checked the call for nommitantios (Sent on april 24th 2013 on the
>> ietf-announce) and it does not describe what should be the
>> qualifications of the candidates. I think that this enough to alienate
>> new people (as they may think that they are not good candidates for the
>> position because of lack of experience in the IETF, not being an RFC
>> author, etc.)
>>
>> I would recommend that future announcement of kind of positions have
>> a very clear profile of what it is expected from the candidates in IETF
>> experience, general requirements, etc. In the end, it is like we were
>> filling a job positions in an organization, the difference here is that
>> we are not receiving a salary.