On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:38 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I think we agree that this would be an undesirable outcome.
b) It seems that we've seen the situation you describe just now.
I'm missing your allusion here. Elaborate?
--Richard
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
