Sent from my iPad > On Jul 29, 2019, at 21:22, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 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;-) Ah. I think you’re missing what I meant by “them”. So instead: “it’s not so much what we call the committee as what the committee thinks the committee is allowed to do” “It” and “them” and “they’re” all refer to the same entity. > > 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 >>>>> >>>> >> >> > <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
