> On 25 Jun 2019, at 20:27, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. I agree. Figuring out how to structure the role of the RFC Editor role for success in our evolving environment seems enough to be getting on with. And I wouldn’t rush this. Better to take some time to get it right. And there are a great many questions to answer, I would imagine. Also, the great Will Rogers used to say, “Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was.” Not everything was perfect when Jon and Bob held the pen and were largely accountable only to themselves. A few of us have our stories…. That’s partly why we have the accountability structure we have today. > > 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. +1 to this. I believe the community had its say about this last year. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
