Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 9, 2019, at 7:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > With that fix, Mike's draft looks pretty good to me. > I agree - this is much closer to what I’d expect to see if I was looking at this job as a potential candidate > Regards > Brian > >> On 09-Sep-19 06:57, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> On 9/8/2019 2:25 PM, RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) wrote: >>> Hi Mike, >>> >>> With my ISE hat on... >>> >>>> I also added an "optional deliverable" to cover April fool's RFCs. >>> While the ISE in some sense sits under the RSE, I believe that the 4/1 >>> RFCs are the responsibility of the ISE, not the RSE. >>> >>> Operationally, the ISE has always asked the for an opinion on candidate >>> documents, but the final decision has been with the ISE. >>> >>> I don't think you need to include this in the SoW. >>> >>> Best, >>> Adrian >> >> OOPS! Noted and easy enough to remove. >> >> Let's see where/if this goes first... >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rfc-interest mailing list >> rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest >> > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest >
