As I said in my rant at https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CommentaryIAB.pdf, "oversight" of the RFC Editor is not mentioned in the IAB Charter (and this was not an oversight, in the other sense of the word). So I think the name has been sending the wrong signal all along, and both the name and the mandate need to be updated accordingly. We should take this discussion to the rfc-interest list now, IMHO. Regards Brian On 30-Jul-19 11:15, Donald Eastlake 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 > > . >
