Ben - specifically in the discussion that prompted Alissa to threaten to PR me.
Mikr
Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App
------ Original Message ------
From: Adam Roach
To: Michael StJohns, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Sent: August 31, 2019 at 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period
On 8/31/19 4:42 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Adam - Hyperbole at this point is not helpful. Specifically "no
> supervision" does not come even close to what we've been asking...
I'm sorry if that came across as hyperbole. I'm honestly trying to probe
at what the community thinks RFC 3005 provides for. If there's some
legitimate authority granted (by what language?) to someone (whom?) to
provide such shepherding, I'm curious about what people think that looks
like. The language that Bob cites, on its face, implies that it does not
exist. I was simply trying to clarify that such was the point he was making.
The rest of your points are reasonable, and as long as no one else is
objecting to the possibility of having this conversation on IETF
territory [1] -- rather than a venue hosted by the RFC Editor -- then
I'm happy to drop attempts to redirect the conversation. We've heard
jurisdictional complaints in the past, and I'm simply trying to avoid
them this time around.
I have one question for you:
> The SAA should not participate in a conversation that it expects to
> have oversight on. Listening is fine, advocacy for one side or
> another is pretty much disqualifying in acting as the SAA for that
> topic as SAA decisions could be seen to be tainted by bias.
I understand the principle you're laying out. Your phrasing implies that
you've seen instances of this happening, which I would find out of
character for either Matthew or Benjamin. Have you seen this happening?
Or are you just trying to ward off future issues?
/a
____
[1] Its impacts on the IRTF and ISE notwithstanding
