On 2019-09-13 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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. That sounds right to me. Henrik > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
