Hiya, On 25/06/2019 18:21, Adrian Farrel wrote: > It is sad, however, that these concerns are not brought to the > Independent Submissions Editor for discussion. Some tensions can be > handled by reconciling the differences between perceptions and the > situation on the ground. I did talk with the IESG at IETF-102 (the > slides are available at > http://www.olddog.co.uk/ise-iesg-ietf102.pdf), but have had only > passing conversations with anyone on the IAB. Nice slides. I agree you are not a problem:-) FWIW, I think discussion of the RFC editor model will be much more tractable and likely to result in a result (be that change or status-quo) if we don't as part of this delve into (im)perfection of the types of RFC, WTF Updates means?, etc. For me, that'd definitely include *not* reconsidering the existence of the ISE but just valuing the ISE's input to the discussion as one of stream owners. Or, we can of course each pick a tiny wee ocean and individually attempt to get that to the boil... Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
