Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote: >> Being tenured means that it is possible to disagree strongly about how >> things should get done without fearing being dismissed. It really >> feels like this is what the RSE needs. I think it is notable that >> Postel/etc. essentially had this kind of security via ISI. >> > What I'm pushing on here is why there's a need for the RSE to have this > level of protection. It seems to envision a scenario where all of the > NOMCOM-appointed, nominally community-endorsed forces are arrayed > against this individual, and they are the last thing preventing some > bad thing from happening. Otherwise, it would make sense for some body > to be able to override them, by force of dismissal if necessary. Is > that what you have in mind? a) The IESG can decide to publish the STD/FYI/BCP series elsewhere. b) It seems that we've seen the situation you describe just now. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature