On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, at 7:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
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.
Speaking as an observer, it didn't seem that way to me.
Stan
I don't have a problemwith you doing that myself but I would point out thatit kinda kills a bunch of arguments that you yourselfmight 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>>>>Attachments:
- 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
- signature..asc
