Mike, On 30/07/2019 00:22, Mike StJohns wrote: > It’s not so much what we call it as what they think they’re allowed to do. That seems mostly like snark. I don't have a problem with you doing that myself but I would point out that it kinda kills a bunch of arguments that you yourself might want to propose for some better path. If your "they" is valid, then it'd be as valid a pseudo- criticism against anything you yourself may propose. S. PS: Don's mail doesn't have that kind of problem. > > Just saying - Mike > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jul 29, 2019, at 19:15, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I don't think the IAB project model fits very well for the RFC Series >> and that it should have different governance for which I have some >> ideas. But I wanted to talk about something else: the power of >> nomenclature. >> >> The key word in RFC Series Oversight Committee is "Oversight". What do >> people think when they hear "oversight"? They think that a large part >> the job of whoever has "oversight" is to review and criticize. No >> doubt the fine print clarifies things but every time someone thinks >> about or volunteers for or is appointed to the RSOC, it rings the >> "oversight" gong. Of course there are plenty of worse words than >> "oversight". I suppose it could have been called the RFC Series >> Management Committee or something... >> >> What if everything else we the same, but it had been called the RFC >> Series Support Committee? And everytime someone thought about or >> volunteer for or was appointed to the committee they were reminded >> that this is about supporting the RFC Series? >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> =============================== >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >> 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA >> d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx >> > >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
