Hi Mike, On 30/07/2019 02:01, Michael StJohns wrote: > Top posting - just because. > > Don said "What if everything else we [sic] the same, but it had been > called the RFC Series Support Committee?" > > I said "It's not so much what we call it as what they think they're > allowed to do". > > Not quite sure where you get "snark" from that. (And I've read the rest > of the chain). Fair enough. My interpretation is that going from "s/oversight/support/ to s/us/them/ wasn't constructive and seemed to me snarky. If I'm wrong about that then, sorry, and I do apologise. (Mind you that sounds a bit like a contingently shit apology - basically, I do think I'm right in my critique of your mail, but if, as does often happen, I'm wrong, then I actually am really sorry, and hope that's less contingently shit;-) I nonetheless do think Don's mail about support vs. oversight is likely much more useful than an "us" vs. "them" description where "them" is really "us via nomcom," and is hence, "us." Cheers, S. > > Basically, if all you did was change the name of the group in 6635, > IMNSHO we still would have ended up in exactly the same place that we did. > > Later, Mike > > > > On 7/29/2019 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. 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
