I can well believe that a different word would have been better.
For me, the word came from the only explicit tasking, namely the hiring
and biennial review of the RSE by the RSOC.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/29/2019 9:22 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
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
