On 14-Sep-19 07:32, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Sep 13, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Sarah Banks <sbanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sbanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> I'm saying you can't accuse folks of jury rigging the process with their wants and desires but then do the same. The SOW proposal was to cover the tactical, NOT slide in how someone wants to see the reporting structure work. How and where the RSE reports to should be a part of the community conversation, and I'm asserting that you can't have the community conversation by providing a new SOW with a week left on the comment period. I'm asserting that the conversation will take longer than a conversation, and that it should be a part of the broader scope of what and how we want things to change. > > Okay, I understand where you are coming from. That said, effectively what you are saying is that Mike’s proposal can’t happen, and that we need to get rough consensus on your proposal. Given the pressing nature of the situation, I understand why you are maintaining that position; however, it is a fairly unfortunate position to have to take. Is there consensus for this position? Who is calling consensus? Actually, I'm not understanding why the RSOC couldn't just decide it prefers Mike's proposal as a simpler way of obtaining the desired goal of an acting RSE to keep things moving along without mortgaging the future. I don't see that violating the RSOC's role, in these unusual circumstances. As for who calls consensus, this raises the old question of what is the RFC community of interest and who speaks for it. But in practice, it's the RSOC as the IAB's delegate that has been doing so for previous RSE appointments. Brian
