Hiya, Just on this bit... On 26/06/2019 23:09, Carsten Bormann wrote: > and do we want to address this and/or our expectations of the RSE’s > job and the RFC publication series as a whole. I think it'd be great to know if the community really do or do not want to consider these questions. (It's very clear some people do want some changes. It's far from clear to me at least that there's some form of consensus for any one change.) However, we probably oughtn't expect too much too soon. Sarah will know better than I, but given the timeframe in which we'll need a new RSE, I'd be shocked if the community could properly process those questions in time for that. In fact more than shocked, I just don't believe it:-) If you work back from Jan 1 2020 to the time when an RFP will need to go out then I'm sure you'll quickly see that we really don't have time for a proper community process before this RFP iteration. (RSOC folks are figuring out the details at the moment IIUC and they and/or Ted, as IAB chair, will send mail soon about that.) Put another way, given the timeframe, the next RSE will be appointed according to current processes without any substantive change to the role, and we still won't know if the community do or do not want changes to the RSE role whilst that process is running. So, while your question above is a great one that I do think we need to figure out how to finally clarify, it'll take a while and any results won't have immediate effect. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
