|
Ted, Having had a chance to review the instant replay, I have a question about your statement. https://youtu.be/ti2iE0jBL0s?t=9839 I have a strong belief at this point that one of the key risks that Heather articulated was that if the ball gets dropped during this period of transition in the format there may be a set of issues that makes it even more difficult to bring somebody in afterwards as a result of that I think the most likely result here even though there were very clear articulations for why we might want to wait until further community discussion occurred that we will probably say that having the ability to overlap with Heather is probably an overriding concern but that's the the reflection that we'll go to the lists for further discussion Is this your opinion? Is it a statement as IAB chair. Is it direction to the RSOC? Is
it representative of IAB consensus? It is not mentioned in the reflections email. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/?gbt=1&index=7g0pp1chSl1zdZEeG_IVOgJA50g I interpret that statement in light of the thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_Le5BN-GsJA-424DHbcFupgZHAA I would therefore pose a question. Are we in your opinion choosing between appointing an interim RSE
and issuing another solicitation based on the current RFC 6635
model or some a yet unstated model which has a completion time in
this calendar year? Can you articulate how we install an RSE by or prior to Singapore such that overlap with the current RSE is achieved? Thanks joel
|
Attachment:
pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
