From nobody Mon Jan 3 05:44:13 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478CC3A07A2; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 05:44:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-I3A8zRHpZi; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 05:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E081C3A07A0; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 05:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p200300dee733e700114c3388f1dd340c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e733:e700:114c:3388:f1dd:340c]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1n4Nd2-00013Q-Hv; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 14:44:00 +0100
From: Mirja Kuehlewind
Message-Id:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD9A5F71-5AE0-46CF-8265-3E8804368538"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 14:43:59 +0100
In-Reply-To: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Eliot Lear , Michael StJohns
To: Jay Daley , John C Klensin
References: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1641217446;60c8c9ca;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1n4Nd2-00013Q-Hv
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 13:44:11 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_BD9A5F71-5AE0-46CF-8265-3E8804368538
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Not sure I can add much to this discussion which has not been said =
before but as I hope this might help, here is my view.=20
This is the text in draft:
"The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including members from =
the community, that will be responsible for making a recommendation to =
the IETF LLC for the RSCE role.=E2=80=9D
I think the important point of this text is that not the selection =
committee makes the final decision but the LLC Board which is a group of =
community selected volunteers. Yes, usually the LLC will likely follow =
the recommendation from the selection committee but they also have to =
provide proposer justifications to the LLC. The role of the search =
committee really is to support the LLC Board with additional expertise =
and it=E2=80=99s the LLC Board that knows best which additional =
expertise is needed. As such I think I=E2=80=99m okay with what is =
written in the draft currently.
However, I would also like to note that th text says the LCC Board forms =
the selection committee and not the ED. While these are internals on how =
the LLC Board manages itself, I would assume that=E2=80=99s rather a job =
for the LLC Board chair with approval of the whole (community-selected) =
board than the ED. This issue was discussed and confirmed (changing =
responsibility from the ED to the whole LLC board in GitHub issue #40).
If the ED would be the sole one to select the committee I would be more =
concerned because I think it=E2=80=99s easy (and often happens =
naturally) to select people with a certain bias if selected by only one =
person. But that=E2=80=99s not the process as specified to my =
understanding.
I guess we could add a few more words about who/which group of people =
should be considered to be on the committee but not sure that is really =
needed or very helpful. I raised issue #111 asking about the textual =
difference of the RSCE selection committee vs. the RPC selection =
committee. For we RPC selection committee we explicitly say that the ED =
is part of this committee and the stream approving bodies are consulted. =
It was confirmed to me that this difference was on purpose.=20
I also hope that the LLC Board would anyway consult with the RSAB in =
such matters. So I=E2=80=99m have no concern with the additional text =
proposed by Eliot. However, I hope that the LLC Board would also consult =
about other (finical) topics that are relevant or the RFC series and the =
RPC with the RSAB. Not sure if we really need to say more about this =
explicitly.
Mirja
> On 29. Dec 2021, at 20:50, Jay Daley wrote:
>=20
> John
>=20
> I agree, the current model does make the ED the sole arbiter of who =
meets the criteria to be on the appointment committee and I can see why =
you might have concerns that this could be misused. I have no objection =
to any checking mechanism for this, such as your proposed check with the =
RSAB but please note, that would likely delay the appointment of the =
RSCE by ~3 months because this process cannot then start until the RSAB =
is seated. I also btw, have no objection to the committee being chosen =
entirely separately from me. The one thing I would ask if we go that =
path is that we document, as briefly as possible, the knowledge those =
people are expected to have.
>=20
> My plan, as previously noted, was to come to this list with a proposed =
committee and get feedback that way, as I am obliged to do by section =
4.4 or RFC8711 (which is phrased much stronger than an aspiration, but =
that=E2=80=99s a conversation for another time). Of course, as you have =
explained, if this is not specified in the process then there is a =
possibility that another ED might not do that.
>=20
> Even if we don=E2=80=99t put any of those safeguards in place, I will =
continue to find this appointment process disproportionate given that =
the processes for appointing the RPC, Secretariat, and Tools Team PM, =
all of which probably have more impact than this new role, are nowhere =
near as deeply specified. =20
>=20
> Jay
>=20
> (PS. This is likely to be my last post until Jan 24th as I start my =
summer vacation later today).
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director=20
> exec-director@ietf.org
>=20
>> On 30/12/2021, at 6:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>=20
>> =EF=BB=BF
>>=20
>> --On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 15:06 +1300 Jay Daley
>> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Briefly, this has become one or two orders of magnitude more
>>> complex than is required for this role (remembering that the
>>> role as written is very different from the previous role).
>>> The overriding priority for committee members should be that
>>> they understand this new role and will therefore find someone
>>> who fits this role rather than the previous role. I've
>>> regularly pushed back on having ex-officio appointments to the
>>> selection committee because, from what I've seen so far, the
>>> number of people who properly understand this new role is
>>> actually quite limited in number. Picking a random IAB/IESG
>>> person who isn't one of those means the committee has to
>>> work much harder to bring them to speed.=20
>>=20
>> Jay,
>>=20
>> Setting aside Stephen's reaction (and my similar one), whatever
>> nostalgia I may feel for the old way of doing things and, hence,
>> the old RSE role, had nothing to do with my comments. I think I
>> understand the new role. It is clear from the above that my
>> understanding is almost certainly different from yours. I got a
>> hint of the differences from your "de facto" note, but this note
>> from you makes the difference much more clear.
>>=20
>> The more important comment above is about people who "properly
>> understand this new role". While I agree that is important,
>> the above, combined with your proposed sole control of the
>> selection committee and other aspects of the hiring process,
>> would appear to set you up as the sole arbiter of "proper
>> understanding" as well as of the entire hiring and selection
>> process. I'd have a problem with that sole arbiter role even if
>> I was confident that our understanding agreed. =20
>>=20
>> I also note that I dud not say anything about an ex-officio
>> appointment to the selection committee. I don't remember anyone
>> else suggesting that either. I think that makes "Picking a
>> random IAB/IESG person..." entirely a red herring.
>>=20
>> I think the new role is going to be much harder than the old one
>> because it requires, not only bringing a high level of expertise
>> to the table, but of educating and persuading people about the
>> implications of opinions formed on the basis of that expertise
>> rather than being able to simply acting with authority when they
>> think the time is right for that. We've removed the implicit
>> requirement for management experience from the role but not the
>> requirements for in-depth expertise and understanding. Assuming
>> the personalities are right, that education and persuasion role
>> will be easier for someone with more experience and knowledge to
>> draw upon than for a more junior person whose input might be
>> less persuasive. I'm expecting someone in that role who is
>> capable of offering real advice based on their observations of
>> what is going on, and doing so proactively, not just someone who
>> is going to sit around waiting for questions or being presented
>> with things and nodding approvingly.=20
>>=20
>> We haven't clearly defined that role or the requirements in the
>> document other than to say "an expert in technical publishing"
>> and "senior technical publishing professional who will apply
>> their deep knowledge of technical publishing processes to the
>> RFC Series" but even those are fairly high requirements. At
>> least as I read them, they set a far higher bar than your de
>> facto list. The role would change significantly if the document
>> said that the RSCE was expected to speak only when spoken to and
>> to answer questions only if they are asked by, e.g., the RSAB,
>> RSWG, or ED but I can't find such text. Based, among other
>> things, on experience doing some consulting for an important
>> technical publisher and interacting with them over decisions
>> similar to those the RFC Series has faced and will face and on
>> experience with the RFC Series that had more to do with strategy
>> than about roles and how they were defined (RFC 4846, 4897,
>> etc., notwithstanding) and participation in the last search
>> process (relevant not because I think the roles are the same but
>> because those qualifications for expertise and deep knowledge
>> are a subset of the criteria the last time around), I think the
>> position is going to be very hard to fill. Based on that same
>> experience and perspective I think that, if a selection is made
>> on the basis of nothing more than your de facto criteria and
>> ability to work well with you, we are not going to end up with
>> the person in that role that many (at least) of us believe the
>> phrases quoted above require.
>>=20
>> Speaking only for myself, if we are not going to put someone in
>> that position who has enough experience and perspective to exert
>> real influence --not just answer technical publication questions
>> that I'm confident the RPC could handle, at least if they are
>> not micromanaged (but might or might not want to), we should
>> reduce the complexity of the new model by just getting rid of
>> the RSCE position.=20
>>=20
>> Now, I don't know what you are picturing and it is probably time
>> that you be much more explicit about it. But, unless you can
>> explain your "proper" understanding of the role --not just
>> identify what you call de facto requirements and then
>> hand-wave-- and there is consensus (at least rough) about that,
>> I think we have three choices (the third of which I hope no one
>> likes):
>>=20
>> (1) We review our collective expectations of the position and
>> write enough of a description and set of qualifications into the
>> document to provide much of the content of a job posting or RFP
>> without leaving you or your successors as sole arbiters of what
>> the position is about.
>>=20
>> (2) We provide some (mandatory) mechanism for input into, or
>> review of, the selection committee membership to make sure that
>> diverse perspectives are represented by competent people who are
>> willing to work together. Eliot sees some issues with my
>> version and I see some issues with his but I don't see much
>> point in further discussion of those differences unless we can
>> get the selection process away from the idea of you (with or
>> without discussion within the LLC) being sole arbiter (subject
>> only to your interpretation of the few words in the document) of
>> what the position is about and what sort of qualifications are
>> needed in someone who is selected.
>>=20
>> See "obnoxious postscript" below for (3).
>>=20
>>> I fully understand the depth of trauma some felt about the
>>> previous role and that the scars are still fresh, but this is
>>> a very different role and we don't need to overthink it.=20
>>=20
>> Whether I think you understand that or have the experience to
>> make the judgment is probably irrelevant as is your claim on the
>> subject. It is a very different role. Maybe I haven't been
>> watching closely enough but, at least in the last few months,
>> I've seen no signs of anyone who does not understand that and
>> think it is very different. And that is what I've said
>> multiple times: another thing that made the old role possible to
>> fill by relying on tradition is that the tradition and
>> precedents were there and clear to those most involved,
>> something that is not the case for this new and very different
>> role. =20
>>=20
>> To use an example so deliberately exaggerated that I hope no one
>> will think it is a proposal or serious suggestion, one way to
>> avoid trying to carefully define it would be to appoint Donald
>> Duck to the role for a moderately short term, watch the ways in
>> which his performance is or is not successful, and then revise
>> our expectations and then either eliminate the position (because
>> his failures didn't make any difference) or write a job
>> description based on what we had learned by the end of that
>> period. While I don't think anyone you would be likely to
>> recruit and hire (with or without a selection committee you
>> control) would perform nearly as badly as I would expect from
>> said duck, appointing someone unqualified (however accidentally)
>> and then learning from the experience is not an experiment I
>> would choose to perform if we can avoid it.
>>=20
>> best,
>> john
>>=20
>> Obnoxious postscript:
>>=20
>> There is another way of looking at this, one I mentioned some
>> time ago in the context of an "ultimate authority" discussion
>> and that, IIR, no one found helpful. Let me try again, both to
>> make a strawman counterproposal and to put my suggestion in a
>> different light. The note quoted above reinforces the relevance
>> of mentioning it. As this system has evolved and in the last
>> analysis, the LLC is in charge of almost everything. They
>> control the budget for anything that involves either work or
>> money. They contract for, evaluate, manage, and control the
>> RPC. While I would not expect it to ever happen, they could
>> even deny publication for a particular document, approved by
>> some stream, by forbidding the RPC to invest any resources in
>> it. If the RSWG and RSAB propose a policy change, they can say
>> "too expensive", "no budget", or "not something we are willing
>> to manage" and there is no appeal. They control the RSCE
>> selection, hiring, and evaluation processes and, if it suits
>> their needs, convenience, or management style, could easily (and
>> perhaps inadvertently) reduce that position to something very
>> low-level with no influence on anything except to advise them
>> when they decide they want advice. For those reasons, if there
>> is a difference of opinion about what some provision of the
>> "Model" document or other community-written specifications mean
>> (not limited to the understanding of the RSCE role) and the
>> community does not persuade them to change their view, their
>> opinion will ultimately prevail. While they engage in
>> consultations and other ways to measure community opinions and
>> their own performance, they ultimately make the final decisions
>> and are ultimately accountable to no one other than themselves
>> (with the possible exception of the ISOC Board and the only
>> option there, if it exists at all, would be very drastic).
>>=20
>> We are, of course, protected from a grim version of that picture
>> by the moral and ethical obligations that the LLC Board and
>> Staff, especially the Executive Director, feel to the community
>> and community consensus but those obligations are, to use ekr's
>> term, aspirational, not anything that is legally binding or
>> enforceable.
>>=20
>> Given that description, which I believe summarizes the actual
>> reality, perhaps what we should do with this Program is to
>> declare success, thank Peter and the Co-chairs for their
>> efforts, drop this fairly complicated "Model" document
>> (including the RSWG and RSAB ideas), and replace it with an
>> extremely short one that reaffirms the Streams, their
>> relationships, and their independence of each other in terms of
>> what is to be published. It would then say that the policies of
>> the RFC Series and production of documents are ultimately
>> administrative and financial matters to be managed, contracted
>> or hired for as needed, and generally decided upon, by the LLC,
>> encouraging them to engage in consultations with the community
>> or selected subsets of it as they deem appropriate.
>>=20
>> I don't believe we should do that but it raises questions that
>> may be worth thinking about. And, again thinking about ekr's
>> comments and the reality that almost nothing in the document is
>> actionable (other than giving people new and different titles or
>> affiliations) without LLC decisions; decisions that the LLC has,
>> in principle, the option of not making. Given that, maybe we
>> should be engaging, not in relitigating issues that made sense
>> under the assumption that this Program had authority and could
>> define an RSWG, RSAB, and other roles and put them in charge but
>> recognizing that there is no "in charge" other than the LLC. If
>> those roles are ultimately meaningless except to give
>> non-binding advice to the LLC, perhaps the whole arrangement is
>> much too complicated are likely to be far too expensive of the
>> time of those involved, especially those who might otherwise be
>> working on agendas more directly connected to the development of
>> Internet technology.=20
>>=20
>> I did say "obnoxious", didn't I?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> Rfced-future mailing list
>> Rfced-future@iab.org
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--Apple-Mail=_BD9A5F71-5AE0-46CF-8265-3E8804368538
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Not =
sure I can add much to this discussion which has not been said before =
but as I hope this might help, here is my view.
This is the text in draft:
"The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, =
including members from the community, that will be responsible for =
making a recommendation to the IETF LLC for the RSCE role.=E2=80=9D
I think the important point of this text is that =
not the selection committee makes the final decision but the =
LLC Board which is a group of community selected volunteers. Yes, =
usually the LLC will likely follow the recommendation from the =
selection committee but they also have to provide =
proposer justifications to the LLC. The role of the search =
committee really is to support the LLC Board with =
additional expertise and it=E2=80=99s the LLC Board that knows =
best which additional expertise is needed. As such I think I=E2=80=99m =
okay with what is written in the draft =
currently.
However, I would also like to note that th =
text says the LCC Board forms the selection committee and not the ED. =
While these are internals on how the LLC Board manages itself, I =
would assume that=E2=80=99s rather a job for the LLC Board =
chair with approval of the whole (community-selected) board than the ED. =
This issue was discussed and confirmed (changing responsibility =
from the ED to the whole LLC board in GitHub issue =
#40).
If the ED would be the sole one to select the =
committee I would be more concerned because I think =
it=E2=80=99s easy (and often happens naturally) to select =
people with a certain bias if selected by only one person. But =
that=E2=80=99s not the process as specified to my =
understanding.
I guess we could add a few more words about =
who/which group of people should be considered to be on the committee =
but not sure that is really needed or very helpful. I raised issue =
#111 asking about the textual difference of the RSCE =
selection committee vs. the RPC selection committee. For we RPC =
selection committee we explicitly say that the ED is part =
of this committee and the stream approving bodies are consulted. It was =
confirmed to me that this difference was on =
purpose.
I also hope that the LLC Board would anyway =
consult with the RSAB in such matters. So I=E2=80=99m have no =
concern with the additional text proposed by Eliot. However, I hope that =
the LLC Board would also consult about other (finical) topics that =
are relevant or the RFC series and the RPC with the RSAB. Not sure if we =
really need to say more about this explicitly.
Mirja
John
I agree, the current model =
does make the ED the sole arbiter of who meets the criteria to be on the =
appointment committee and I can see why you might have concerns that =
this could be misused. I have no objection to any checking =
mechanism for this, such as your proposed check with the RSAB but please =
note, that would likely delay the appointment of the RSCE by ~3 months =
because this process cannot then start until the RSAB is seated. I =
also btw, have no objection to the committee being chosen entirely =
separately from me. The one thing I would ask if we go that path =
is that we document, as briefly as possible, the knowledge those people =
are expected to have.
My plan, as =
previously noted, was to come to this list with a proposed committee and =
get feedback that way, as I am obliged to do by section 4.4 or RFC8711 =
(which is phrased much stronger than an aspiration, but that=E2=80=99s a =
conversation for another time). Of course, as you have explained, =
if this is not specified in the process then there is a =
possibility that another ED might not do that.
Even if we don=E2=80=99t put any of those safeguards in =
place, I will continue to find this appointment process disproportionate =
given that the processes for appointing the RPC, Secretariat, and Tools =
Team PM, all of which probably have more impact than this new role, are =
nowhere near as deeply specified.
Jay
(PS. This is likely to be my =
last post until Jan 24th as I start my summer vacation later today).
--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@ietf.orgOn 30/12/2021, at 6:04 =
AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
=EF=BB=BF
--On Wednesday, =
December 29, 2021 15:06 +1300 Jay Daley
<exec-director@ietf.org> wrote:
Briefly, this has become =
one or two orders of magnitude more
complex than is =
required for this role (remembering that the
role as =
written is very different from the previous role).
The =
overriding priority for committee members should be that
they understand this new role and will therefore find =
someone
who fits this role rather than the previous role. =
I've
regularly pushed back on having ex-officio =
appointments to the
selection committee because, from what =
I've seen so far, the
number of people who properly =
understand this new role is
actually quite limited in =
number. Picking a random IAB/IESG
person who isn't one of =
those means the committee has to
work much harder to bring =
them to speed.
Jay,
Setting aside Stephen's reaction (and my =
similar one), whatever
nostalgia I may feel for the old =
way of doing things and, hence,
the old RSE role, had =
nothing to do with my comments. I think I
understand =
the new role. It is clear from the above that my
understanding is almost certainly different from yours. =
I got a
hint of the differences from your "de facto" =
note, but this note
from you makes the difference much =
more clear.
The more important comment =
above is about people who "properly
understand this new =
role". While I agree that is important,
the =
above, combined with your proposed sole control of the
selection committee and other aspects of the hiring =
process,
would appear to set you up as the sole arbiter of =
"proper
understanding" as well as of the entire hiring and =
selection
process. I'd have a problem with that sole =
arbiter role even if
I was confident that our =
understanding agreed.
I also note =
that I dud not say anything about an ex-officio
appointment =
to the selection committee. I don't remember anyone
else suggesting that either. I think that makes =
"Picking a
random IAB/IESG person..." entirely a red =
herring.
I think the new role is going to =
be much harder than the old one
because it requires, not =
only bringing a high level of expertise
to the table, but =
of educating and persuading people about the
implications =
of opinions formed on the basis of that expertise
rather =
than being able to simply acting with authority when they
think the time is right for that. We've removed the =
implicit
requirement for management experience from the =
role but not the
requirements for in-depth expertise and =
understanding. Assuming
the personalities are right, =
that education and persuasion role
will be easier for =
someone with more experience and knowledge to
draw upon =
than for a more junior person whose input might be
less =
persuasive. I'm expecting someone in that role who is
capable of offering real advice based on their observations =
of
what is going on, and doing so proactively, not just =
someone who
is going to sit around waiting for questions =
or being presented
with things and nodding approvingly. =
We haven't clearly defined that role or =
the requirements in the
document other than to say "an =
expert in technical publishing"
and "senior technical =
publishing professional who will apply
their deep =
knowledge of technical publishing processes to the
RFC =
Series" but even those are fairly high requirements. At
least as I read them, they set a far higher bar than your =
de
facto list. The role would change significantly =
if the document
said that the RSCE was expected to speak =
only when spoken to and
to answer questions only if they =
are asked by, e.g., the RSAB,
RSWG, or ED but I can't find =
such text. Based, among other
things, on experience =
doing some consulting for an important
technical publisher =
and interacting with them over decisions
similar to those =
the RFC Series has faced and will face and on
experience =
with the RFC Series that had more to do with strategy
than =
about roles and how they were defined (RFC 4846, 4897,
etc.,=
notwithstanding) and participation in the last search
process (relevant not because I think the roles are the same =
but
because those qualifications for expertise and deep =
knowledge
are a subset of the criteria the last time =
around), I think the
position is going to be very hard to =
fill. Based on that same
experience and perspective =
I think that, if a selection is made
on the basis of =
nothing more than your de facto criteria and
ability to =
work well with you, we are not going to end up with
the =
person in that role that many (at least) of us believe the
phrases quoted above require.
Speaking only for myself, if we are not going to put someone =
in
that position who has enough experience and perspective =
to exert
real influence --not just answer technical =
publication questions
that I'm confident the RPC could =
handle, at least if they are
not micromanaged (but might =
or might not want to), we should
reduce the complexity of =
the new model by just getting rid of
the RSCE position. =
Now, I don't know what you are picturing =
and it is probably time
that you be much more explicit =
about it. But, unless you can
explain your =
"proper" understanding of the role --not just
identify =
what you call de facto requirements and then
hand-wave-- =
and there is consensus (at least rough) about that,
I =
think we have three choices (the third of which I hope no one
likes):
(1) We review our =
collective expectations of the position and
write enough =
of a description and set of qualifications into the
document=
to provide much of the content of a job posting or RFP
without leaving you or your successors as sole arbiters of =
what
the position is about.
(2)=
We provide some (mandatory) mechanism for input into, or
review of, the selection committee membership to make sure =
that
diverse perspectives are represented by competent =
people who are
willing to work together. Eliot sees =
some issues with my
version and I see some issues with his =
but I don't see much
point in further discussion of those =
differences unless we can
get the selection process away =
from the idea of you (with or
without discussion within =
the LLC) being sole arbiter (subject
only to your =
interpretation of the few words in the document) of
what =
the position is about and what sort of qualifications are
needed in someone who is selected.
See "obnoxious postscript" below for (3).
I fully understand the =
depth of trauma some felt about the
previous role and that =
the scars are still fresh, but this is
a very different =
role and we don't need to overthink it.
Whether I think you understand that or have the experience =
to
make the judgment is probably irrelevant as is your =
claim on the
subject. It is a very different role. =
Maybe I haven't been
watching closely enough but, at =
least in the last few months,
I've seen no signs of anyone =
who does not understand that and
think it is very =
different. And that is what I've said
multiple =
times: another thing that made the old role possible to
fill=
by relying on tradition is that the tradition and
precedents were there and clear to those most involved,
something that is not the case for this new and very =
different
role.
To use =
an example so deliberately exaggerated that I hope no one
will think it is a proposal or serious suggestion, one way =
to
avoid trying to carefully define it would be to appoint =
Donald
Duck to the role for a moderately short term, watch =
the ways in
which his performance is or is not successful, =
and then revise
our expectations and then either eliminate =
the position (because
his failures didn't make any =
difference) or write a job
description based on what we =
had learned by the end of that
period. While I don't =
think anyone you would be likely to
recruit and hire (with =
or without a selection committee you
control) would =
perform nearly as badly as I would expect from
said duck, =
appointing someone unqualified (however accidentally)
and =
then learning from the experience is not an experiment I
would choose to perform if we can avoid it.
best,
john
Obnoxious postscript:
There is =
another way of looking at this, one I mentioned some
time =
ago in the context of an "ultimate authority" discussion
and=
that, IIR, no one found helpful. Let me try again, both to
make a strawman counterproposal and to put my suggestion in =
a
different light. The note quoted above reinforces =
the relevance
of mentioning it. As this system has =
evolved and in the last
analysis, the LLC is in charge of =
almost everything. They
control the budget for =
anything that involves either work or
money. They =
contract for, evaluate, manage, and control the
RPC. =
While I would not expect it to ever happen, they could
even deny publication for a particular document, approved =
by
some stream, by forbidding the RPC to invest any =
resources in
it. If the RSWG and RSAB propose a =
policy change, they can say
"too expensive", "no budget", =
or "not something we are willing
to manage" and there is =
no appeal. They control the RSCE
selection, hiring, =
and evaluation processes and, if it suits
their needs, =
convenience, or management style, could easily (and
perhaps =
inadvertently) reduce that position to something very
low-level with no influence on anything except to advise =
them
when they decide they want advice. For those =
reasons, if there
is a difference of opinion about what =
some provision of the
"Model" document or other =
community-written specifications mean
(not limited to the =
understanding of the RSCE role) and the
community does not =
persuade them to change their view, their
opinion will =
ultimately prevail. While they engage in
consultations=
and other ways to measure community opinions and
their =
own performance, they ultimately make the final decisions
and are ultimately accountable to no one other than =
themselves
(with the possible exception of the ISOC Board =
and the only
option there, if it exists at all, would be =
very drastic).
We are, of course, protected =
from a grim version of that picture
by the moral and =
ethical obligations that the LLC Board and
Staff, =
especially the Executive Director, feel to the community
and=
community consensus but those obligations are, to use ekr's
term, aspirational, not anything that is legally binding =
or
enforceable.
Given that =
description, which I believe summarizes the actual
reality, =
perhaps what we should do with this Program is to
declare =
success, thank Peter and the Co-chairs for their
efforts, =
drop this fairly complicated "Model" document
(including =
the RSWG and RSAB ideas), and replace it with an
extremely =
short one that reaffirms the Streams, their
relationships, =
and their independence of each other in terms of
what is =
to be published. It would then say that the policies of
the RFC Series and production of documents are ultimately
administrative and financial matters to be managed, =
contracted
or hired for as needed, and generally decided =
upon, by the LLC,
encouraging them to engage in =
consultations with the community
or selected subsets of it =
as they deem appropriate.
I don't believe =
we should do that but it raises questions that
may be =
worth thinking about. And, again thinking about ekr's
comments and the reality that almost nothing in the document =
is
actionable (other than giving people new and different =
titles or
affiliations) without LLC decisions; decisions =
that the LLC has,
in principle, the option of not making. =
Given that, maybe we
should be engaging, not in =
relitigating issues that made sense
under the assumption =
that this Program had authority and could
define an RSWG, =
RSAB, and other roles and put them in charge but
recognizing=
that there is no "in charge" other than the LLC. If
those roles are ultimately meaningless except to give
non-binding advice to the LLC, perhaps the whole arrangement =
is
much too complicated are likely to be far too expensive =
of the
time of those involved, especially those who might =
otherwise be
working on agendas more directly connected to =
the development of
Internet technology.
I did say "obnoxious", didn't I?
-- =
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
=
--Apple-Mail=_BD9A5F71-5AE0-46CF-8265-3E8804368538--
From nobody Mon Jan 3 05:59:28 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FDA3A0801; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 05:59:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t0L_UFcTQ5ty; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 05:59:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FF973A07FC; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 05:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1n4Nro-0006bv-9S; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 08:59:16 -0500
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 08:59:10 -0500
From: John C Klensin
To: Mirja Kuehlewind , Jay Daley
cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Eliot Lear , Michael StJohns
Message-ID: <2E2B41B9FBF36E3C8E01EDE2@PSB>
In-Reply-To:
References: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 13:59:27 -0000
Mirja,
FWIW, I found this analysis very helpful.
john
--On Monday, January 3, 2022 14:43 +0100 Mirja Kuehlewind
wrote:
> Not sure I can add much to this discussion which has not been
> said before but as I hope this might help, here is my view.=20
>=20
> This is the text in draft:
>=20
> "The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including
> members from the community, that will be responsible for
> making a recommendation to the IETF LLC for the RSCE role."
>=20
> I think the important point of this text is that not the
> selection committee makes the final decision but the LLC Board
> which is a group of community selected volunteers. Yes,
> usually the LLC will likely follow the recommendation from the
> selection committee but they also have to provide proposer
> justifications to the LLC. The role of the search committee
> really is to support the LLC Board with additional expertise
> and it's the LLC Board that knows best which additional
> expertise is needed. As such I think I'm okay with what is
> written in the draft currently.
>=20
> However, I would also like to note that th text says the LCC
> Board forms the selection committee and not the ED. While
> these are internals on how the LLC Board manages itself, I
> would assume that's rather a job for the LLC Board chair
> with approval of the whole (community-selected) board than the
> ED. This issue was discussed and confirmed (changing
> responsibility from the ED to the whole LLC board in GitHub
> issue #40).
>=20
> If the ED would be the sole one to select the committee I
> would be more concerned because I think it's easy (and often
> happens naturally) to select people with a certain bias if
> selected by only one person. But that's not the process as
> specified to my understanding.
>=20
> I guess we could add a few more words about who/which group of
> people should be considered to be on the committee but not
> sure that is really needed or very helpful. I raised issue
> #111 asking about the textual difference of the RSCE selection
> committee vs. the RPC selection committee. For we RPC
> selection committee we explicitly say that the ED is part of
> this committee and the stream approving bodies are consulted.
> It was confirmed to me that this difference was on purpose.=20
>=20
> I also hope that the LLC Board would anyway consult with the
> RSAB in such matters. So I'm have no concern with the
> additional text proposed by Eliot. However, I hope that the
> LLC Board would also consult about other (finical) topics that
> are relevant or the RFC series and the RPC with the RSAB. Not
> sure if we really need to say more about this explicitly.
>=20
> Mirja
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On 29. Dec 2021, at 20:50, Jay Daley
>> wrote:
>>=20
>> John
>>=20
>> I agree, the current model does make the ED the sole arbiter
>> of who meets the criteria to be on the appointment committee
>> and I can see why you might have concerns that this could be
>> misused. I have no objection to any checking mechanism for
>> this, such as your proposed check with the RSAB but please
>> note, that would likely delay the appointment of the RSCE by
>> ~3 months because this process cannot then start until the
>> RSAB is seated. I also btw, have no objection to the
>> committee being chosen entirely separately from me. The one
>> thing I would ask if we go that path is that we document, as
>> briefly as possible, the knowledge those people are expected
>> to have.
>>=20
>> My plan, as previously noted, was to come to this list with a
>> proposed committee and get feedback that way, as I am obliged
>> to do by section 4.4 or RFC8711 (which is phrased much
>> stronger than an aspiration, but that's a conversation for
>> another time). Of course, as you have explained, if this is
>> not specified in the process then there is a possibility that
>> another ED might not do that.
>>=20
>> Even if we don't put any of those safeguards in place, I
>> will continue to find this appointment process
>> disproportionate given that the processes for appointing the
>> RPC, Secretariat, and Tools Team PM, all of which probably
>> have more impact than this new role, are nowhere near as
>> deeply specified. =20
>>=20
>> Jay
>>=20
>> (PS. This is likely to be my last post until Jan 24th as I
>> start my summer vacation later today).
>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> Jay Daley
>> IETF Executive Director=20
>> exec-director@ietf.org
>>=20
>>> On 30/12/2021, at 6:04 AM, John C Klensin
>>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> =EF=BB=BF
>>=20
>> --On =
Wedn=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80esday, =
December 29,
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=802021 15:06 =
+1300 Jay=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
Daley
>> =
wrot=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e:
>>=20
>>> =
Briefly=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80, =
this has become
on=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e or two =
orders of
m=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80agnitude =
more
>>> =
c=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80omplex =
than is =
requi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80red
for this role =
(r=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ememberin=
g that the
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>>> role as =
written=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 is =
very
different =
f=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rom the =
previous
rol=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e).
>>> The =
overrid=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ing =
priority for
com=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80mittee =
members =
shoul=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d be
that
>>> they =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80understand =
this new
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80role and =
will =
theref=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ore =
find
someone
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> who =
fits this =
role=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
rather than the =
pre=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80vious =
role. I've
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> =
regularly pushed =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80back on
having =
ex-of=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ficio =
appointments
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80o the
>>> =
selection=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
committee because,
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80from what =
I've seen =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80so far,
the
>>> num=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ber =
of people who
pr=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80operly =
understand =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80is new
role is
>>> =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80actually =
quite =
limit=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ed
in number. =
Pickin=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80g a =
random IAB/IESG
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>>> person =
who isn'=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t =
one of
those =
means=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 the =
committee has
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80o
>>> work much =
har=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80der to =
bring them
to=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 speed.=20
>>=20
>> Ja=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80y,
>>=20
>> Setting =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80aside =
Stephen's
reac=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tion =
(and my =
similar=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
one), whatever
>> =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nostalgia =
I may feel=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
for
the old way of =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80doing =
things and,
he=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nce,
>> the old =
RSE=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 role, =
had nothing
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80o do with =
my =
comment=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s. =
I
think I
>> =
un=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80derstand =
the new =
rol=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e.
It is clear =
from=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 the =
above that my
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> =
understanding is =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80almost
certainly =
dif=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ferent =
from yours.
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80I got a
>> hint of =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80the =
differences
from=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 your =
"de facto" =
not=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e,
but this note
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 from =
you makes the
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80difference =
much more=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
clear.
>>=20
>> The=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
more important
comm=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ent =
above is about
p=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80eople who =
"properly
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> understand =
this =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80new
role". While =
I=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 agree =
that is
impor=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tant,
>> the =
above,=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
combined with your
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80proposed =
sole =
contro=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80l of =
the
>> =
selecti=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on =
committee and
oth=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80er =
aspects of the =
hi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ring
process,
>> wo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80uld =
appear to set =
yo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80u
up as the sole =
arb=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80iter of =
"proper
>> =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80understandi=
ng" as =
we=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ll as
of the entire =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hiring and
selection=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> process. I'd =
h=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ave a =
problem with
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hat sole =
arbiter =
rol=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e even
if
>> I was =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80confident =
that our
u=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nderstandi=
ng agreed.=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
=20
>>=20
>> I also =
n=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ote that =
I dud not
s=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ay =
anything about =
an=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
ex-officio
>> =
appo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80intment=
to the
selec=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tion =
committee. I
d=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on't =
remember =
anyone=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> else =
suggesting=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
that either. I
thi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nk that =
makes =
"Picki=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ng a
>> random =
IAB/=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80IESG =
person..."
enti=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rely a =
red herring.
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>>=20
>> I think =
the=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 new =
role is going
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80o be much =
harder =
tha=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80n the
old one
>> be=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80cause =
it requires, =
n=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ot
only bringing a =
h=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80igh level =
of
experti=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80se
>> to the =
table,=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 but =
of educating
an=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d =
persuading people =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80about
the
>> =
implic=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ation=
s of opinions
f=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ormed on =
the basis =
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80f that
expertise
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 rather =
than being =
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ble to
simply =
acting=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
with authority
when=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 they
>> think the =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80time is =
right for
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80at. =
We've removed =
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80he
implicit
>> =
requ=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80irement=
for
manageme=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nt =
experience from
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80he role =
but not the
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> =
requirements =
for=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
in-depth
expertise =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80and =
understanding.
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80Assuming
>> the =
per=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80sonaliti=
es are
right=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80, =
that education =
and=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
persuasion role
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 will be =
easier for
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80someone =
with more =
ex=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80perience
and =
knowled=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ge =
to
>> draw upon =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80than for a =
more
juni=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or =
person whose =
inpu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t
might be
>> less =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80persuasive.=
I'm
exp=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ecting =
someone in =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80at
role who is
>> c=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80apable =
of offering =
r=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80eal
advice based on =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80their =
observations
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80f
>> what is going =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on, and =
doing so
pro=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80actively=
, not just
s=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80omeone =
who
>> is =
go=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ing to =
sit around
wa=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80iting =
for questions =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or
being presented
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> with =
things and =
n=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80odding
approvingly. =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>>=20
>> We =
haven't=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
clearly defined
tha=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t role =
or the
requir=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ement=
s in the
>> =
do=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80cument =
other than =
to=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
say "an expert in =
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80echnical
publishing"=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=
>> and "senior =
tec=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hnical =
publishing
pr=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ofessiona=
l who will =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80apply
>> their =
deep=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
knowledge of
techni=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80cal =
publishing
proce=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80sses =
to the
>> RFC =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80Series" =
but even
tho=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80se are =
fairly high
r=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80equirement=
s. At
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 least =
as I read =
the=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80m,
they set a far =
hi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80gher bar =
than your
d=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
>> facto list. =
T=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80he role =
would
change=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
significantly if =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
document
>> said =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80that the =
RSCE was
ex=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80pected =
to speak =
only=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 when
spoken to and
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> to answer =
questi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ons =
only
if they =
are=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 asked =
by, e.g.,
the=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 RSAB,
>> RSWG, or =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ED but I =
can't find
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80such text. =
Based, =
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80mong
other
>> thing=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s, =
on experience
doi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ng some =
consulting =
f=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or an
important
>> =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80technical =
publisher =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80and
interacting =
with=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 them =
over
decisions=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> similar to =
thos=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e the =
RFC Series
has=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 faced =
and will =
face=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 and
on
>> =
experien=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ce =
with the RFC
Seri=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80es =
that had more to =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80do
with strategy
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 than =
about roles =
an=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d how
they were =
defi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ned =
(RFC 4846,
4897,=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> etc., =
notwithst=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80an=
ding) and
particip=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ati=
on in the last
se=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80arch
>> process =
(re=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80levant =
not because
I=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 think =
the roles =
are=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 the
same but
>> be=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80cause =
those
qualific=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ati=
ons for =
expertise=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
and deep knowledge
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> are a =
subset of =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80the
criteria the =
las=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t time =
around), I
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ink the
>> =
position=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
is going to be
very=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 hard =
to fill. =
Base=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d on
that same
>> =
e=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80xperience =
and
perspe=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ctive=
I think that, =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80if
a selection is =
ma=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80de
>> on the basis =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80of nothing =
more
than=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 your =
de facto =
crite=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ria
and
>> ability =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80to work =
well with
yo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80u, we =
are not going =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80to end
up with
>> t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80he =
person in that =
ro=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80le
that many (at =
lea=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80st) of =
us believe
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
>> phrases =
quoted=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
above require.
>> =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> Speaking only =
f=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or =
myself, if we
are=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 not =
going to put =
so=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80meone
in
>> that =
po=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80sition =
who has
enoug=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80h =
experience and
per=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80spective=
to exert
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> real =
influence =
--n=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ot just
answer =
techn=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ical =
publication
que=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80stions
>> that I'm =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80confident =
the RPC
co=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80uld =
handle, at =
least=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 if
they are
>> not=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
micromanaged (but
m=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ight or =
might not =
wa=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nt to),
we should
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> reduce =
the =
complex=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ity =
of
the new =
model=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 by =
just getting
rid=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 of
>> the RSCE =
pos=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ition.=20
>>=20
>> Now=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80, I =
don't know what
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80you are =
picturing =
an=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d it is
probably =
tim=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
>> that you be =
mu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ch more =
explicit
abo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ut it. =
But, =
unless=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 you
can
>> explain=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
your "proper"
under=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80standi=
ng of the =
role=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
--not just
>> =
iden=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tify =
what you call =
d=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
facto =
requirements=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=
and then
>> =
hand-w=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ave--=
and there is
c=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80onsensus =
(at least =
r=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ough)
about that,
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> I think =
we have =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ree
choices (the =
thi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rd of =
which I hope
n=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80o one
>> likes):
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>=20
>> (1) We =
review=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 our =
collective
expe=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ctation=
s of the =
posi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tion
and
>> write =
e=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nough of =
a
descripti=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on=
and set of
qualif=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80icati=
ons into the
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> =
document to =
provid=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e =
much
of the =
conten=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t of =
a job posting
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80r RFP
>> without =
le=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80aving =
you or your
su=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ccessors =
as sole =
arb=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80iters
of what
>> th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e =
position is =
about.=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>>=20
>> (2) We =
pro=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80vide =
some
(mandatory=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80)=
mechanism for
inpu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t =
into, or
>> revie=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80w =
of, the selection
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80committee =
membership=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
to make
sure that
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> diverse =
perspecti=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ve=
s are
represented =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80by =
competent people
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80who are
>> willing =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80to work =
together.
E=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80liot sees =
some =
issue=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s =
with
my
>> versio=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80n =
and I see some
iss=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ues =
with his but I =
d=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on't
see much
>> po=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80int =
in further
discu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ssion =
of those
diffe=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rences=
unless we =
can=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> get the =
selecti=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on =
process away
from=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 the =
idea of you =
(wi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80th or
>> without =
di=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80scussion =
within the
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80LLC) being =
sole =
arbi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ter
(subject
>> onl=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80y to =
your
interpreta=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t=
ion of the few
word=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s in =
the document) =
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80f
>> what the =
posit=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ion =
is about and
wha=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t sort =
of =
qualificat=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80i=
ons
are
>> needed =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80in someone =
who is
se=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80lected.
>>=20
>> See=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
"obnoxious
postscri=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80pt"=
below for (3).
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>>=20
>>> I fully =
und=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80erstand =
the depth
of=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 trauma =
some felt =
ab=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80out the
>>> =
previou=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s =
role and that the
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80scars are =
still =
fres=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80h, but
this is
>>> =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80a very =
different =
rol=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
and we don't need =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80to =
overthink it.=20
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>=20
>> Whether I =
thi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nk you =
understand
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80at or =
have the =
exper=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ience
to
>> make =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e =
judgment is
probab=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ly =
irrelevant as is
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80your claim =
on the
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> =
subject. It is a =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80very
different =
role.=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
Maybe I haven't
be=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80en
>> watching =
clos=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ely =
enough but, at
l=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80east in =
the last =
few=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
months,
>> I've =
se=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80en no =
signs of
anyon=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e who =
does not
under=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80stand =
that and
>> t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hink =
it is very
diff=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80erent. =
And that =
is=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
what I've said
>> =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80multiple =
times: =
anot=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80her
thing that made =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80the old =
role
possibl=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e =
to
>> fill by =
rel=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ying on =
tradition
is=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 that =
the tradition =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80and
>> precedents =
w=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ere there =
and clear
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80to those =
most =
involv=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ed,
>> something =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80at is =
not the case
f=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or this =
new and =
very=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
different
>> role.=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =20
>>=20
>> To use =
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80n example =
so
deliber=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80atel=
y exaggerated
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80at I =
hope no one
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 will =
think it is a
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80proposal =
or serious
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80suggestion,=
one way =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80to
>> avoid trying =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80to =
carefully define
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80it would =
be to =
appoi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nt =
Donald
>> Duck t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80o =
the role for a
mod=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80erately =
short term, =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80watch
the ways in
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> which =
his =
performa=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nce=
is
or is not =
suc=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80cessful,=
and then
re=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80vise
>> our =
expecta=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tion=
s and then
eithe=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80r =
eliminate the
posi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tion =
(because
>> hi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s =
failures didn't =
ma=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ke
any difference) =
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80r write a =
job
>> =
de=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80scription=
based on =
w=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hat
we had learned =
b=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80y the end =
of that
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> period. =
While I =
d=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on't
think anyone =
yo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80u would =
be likely
to=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> recruit and =
hir=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e (with =
or without
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
selection =
committee=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
you
>> control) =
wo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80uld =
perform nearly
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s badly =
as I would =
e=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80xpect
from
>> said =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80duck, =
appointing
som=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80eone =
unqualified =
(ho=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80wever
accidentally)
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> and then =
learnin=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80g =
from
the =
experienc=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e =
is not an
experime=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nt =
I
>> would =
choos=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e to =
perform if we
c=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80an avoid =
it.
>>=20
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> best,
>> john
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>=20
>> Obnoxious =
pos=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tscript:=
>>=20
>> Th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ere =
is another way =
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80f
looking at this, =
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ne I =
mentioned some
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> time ago =
in the =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80context
of an =
"ultim=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ate =
authority"
discu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ssion
>> and that, =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80IIR, no =
one found
he=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80lpful. =
Let me try =
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80gain,
both to
>> ma=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ke a =
strawman
counte=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rprop=
osal and to =
put=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
my suggestion in a
=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> different =
light.=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
The
note quoted =
ab=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ove =
reinforces the
r=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80elevance
>> of =
ment=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ioning =
it. As this
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80system has =
evolved =
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nd in
the last
>> =
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nalysis, =
the LLC is =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80in
charge of almost =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80everything.=
They
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> control =
the budget=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
for
anything that =
i=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nvolves =
either work
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or
>> money. They =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80contract =
for,
evalua=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80te, =
manage, and
cont=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rol =
the
>> RPC. =
Wh=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ile I =
would not
expe=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ct it =
to ever =
happen=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80,
they could
>> eve=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80n =
deny publication =
f=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or
a particular =
docu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ment, =
approved by
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> some =
stream, by
fo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rbidding =
the RPC to =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80invest
any =
resources=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
in
>> it. If the =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80RSWG and =
RSAB
propos=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e a =
policy change,
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hey can =
say
>> "too=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
expensive", "no
bud=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80get", =
or "not =
someth=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ing
we are willing
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> to =
manage" and =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ere is
no appeal. =
T=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hey =
control the
RSCE=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> selection, =
hiri=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ng, =
and evaluation
p=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rocesses =
and, if it =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80suits
>> their =
need=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s, =
convenience, or
m=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80anagement =
style, =
cou=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ld
easily (and
>> p=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80erhaps =
inadvertently=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=
)
reduce that =
positi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on =
to something
very=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> low-level with =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80no =
influence on
anyt=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hing =
except to =
advis=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
them
>> when =
they=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
decide they want
ad=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80vice. =
For those =
rea=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80sons,
if there
>> i=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80s a =
difference of
op=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80inion =
about what =
som=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
provision of the
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> "Model" =
document =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or other
community-w=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=
ritten
specification=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=
s mean
>> (not =
limi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ted to =
the
understan=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80di=
ng of the RSCE
rol=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e) and =
the
>> =
commu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nity =
does not
persua=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80de =
them to change
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80eir =
view, their
>> =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80opinion =
will =
ultimat=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ely
prevail. While =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80they =
engage in
>> =
c=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80onsultatio=
ns and =
oth=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80er
ways to measure =
c=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ommunity =
opinions
an=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d
>> their own =
perf=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ormance=
, they
ultima=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tely =
make the final
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80decisions
>> and ar=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e =
ultimately
account=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80able=
to no one =
other=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
than themselves
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 (with =
the possible
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80exception =
of the =
ISO=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80C Board
and the =
only=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> option there, =
i=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80f it =
exists at all,
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80would be =
very =
drasti=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80c).
>>=20
>> We are,=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
of course,
protecte=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d =
from a grim
versio=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80n of =
that picture
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> by the =
moral and =
e=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80thical
obligations =
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hat the =
LLC Board
an=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d
>> Staff, =
especia=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80lly =
the Executive
Di=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rector, =
feel to the
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80community
>> and =
co=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80mmunity =
consensus
bu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t those =
obligations =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80are,
to use ekr's
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> term, =
aspirational=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=
, not
anything that =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80is legally =
binding
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80r
>> enforceable.
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>>=20
>> Given that =
d=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80escription=
, which I
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80believe =
summarizes =
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80he actual
>> =
realit=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80y, =
perhaps what we
s=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hould do =
with this =
P=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rogram
is to
>> dec=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80lare =
success, thank
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80Peter and =
the =
Co-cha=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80irs =
for
their
>> =
ef=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80forts, =
drop this =
fai=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rly
complicated =
"Mod=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80el" =
document
>> =
(in=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80cluding =
the RSWG =
and=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
RSAB ideas), and =
re=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80place it =
with an
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
extremely short =
one=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 that
reaffirms the =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80Streams, =
their
>> =
r=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80elationshi=
ps, and =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80eir
independence of =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80each other =
in terms
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80of
>> what is to =
be=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
published. It
woul=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d then =
say that the
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80policies =
of
>> the =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80RFC =
Series and
produ=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ction =
of documents =
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80re
ultimately
>> =
ad=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ministrat=
ive and
fin=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ancial =
matters to =
be=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
managed, =
contracted=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> or hired for =
as=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 needed, =
and
general=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ly =
decided upon, by
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80the LLC,
>> =
encoura=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ging=
them to engage
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80in =
consultations =
wit=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80h the
community
>> =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80or =
selected subsets =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80of it
as they deem =
a=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ppropriate=
.
>>=20
>>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 I don't =
believe we =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80should
do that but =
i=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80t raises =
questions
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hat
>> may be =
worth=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
thinking about.
An=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80d, again =
thinking =
ab=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80out
ekr's
>> =
commen=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ts =
and the reality
t=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80hat =
almost nothing =
i=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80n the
document is
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80> =
actionable (other =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80than
giving people =
n=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ew and =
different
tit=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80les or
>> =
affiliati=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80on=
s) without LLC
dec=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80isions; =
decisions =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80at
the LLC has,
>> =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80in =
principle, the =
op=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tion
of not making. =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80Given =
that, maybe
we=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>> should be =
engag=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ing, =
not in
relitiga=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tin=
g issues that
mad=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e sense
>> under =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e =
assumption that
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80is =
Program had =
autho=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rity
and could
>> d=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80efine =
an RSWG, =
RSAB,=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 and
other roles =
and=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 put =
them in charge
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80but
>> recognizing =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80that there =
is no
"in=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
charge" other than =
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80the
LLC. If
>> tho=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80se =
roles are
ultimat=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ely =
meaningless
exce=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80pt to =
give
>> =
non-b=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80inding=
advice to =
the=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
LLC, perhaps the =
wh=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ole =
arrangement is
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>> much =
too =
complica=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ted=
are
likely to =
be=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 far too =
expensive
o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80f the
>> time of =
th=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ose =
involved,
especi=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ally =
those who =
might=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
otherwise be
>> wo=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80rking =
on agendas =
mor=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80e
directly =
connected=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
to the development
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80of
>> Internet =
tech=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80nology.=
=20
>>=20
>> I =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80did =
say =
"obnoxious",=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=
didn't I?
>>=20
>> =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> =E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80--=20
>> =
Rfced-future=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=
mailing list
>> =
Rf=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80ced-futur=
e@iab.org
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80>>
https://www.iab.o=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=
=80=80rg/mailman/listinfo/=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=
=B8=80=E2=80=80rfced-future
>>=20
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80=20
> --=20
> =
Rfced-fu=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80tur=
e mailing list
>=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=80 =
Rfced-future@iab.or=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=
=80=80g
>
https://www.iab=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E2=80=
=80.org/mailman/listinf=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=80=E3=B8=
=80=E2=80=80o/rfced-future
=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80=E0=B4=80=E0=A8=80
From nobody Mon Jan 3 06:52:15 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97913A096B; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 06:52:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 746zzphohjZx; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 06:52:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF0893A096E; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 06:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.129] (77-58-147-26.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.147.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 203Epr8Y2463789 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Jan 2022 15:51:56 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1641221518; bh=ncziDl0uFcUqnhK6iEKvlUcmcNMR0aIwzEVBmGaSMtg=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=r7cphHCGiJeOx7kWzyCaiyS8QWp5ZqBRUTjeBYJy+HGEgRrX8o0FqiQCfCbTxkRcB Yt0+wD8NvCk4b62ynQDpf0S7G9Wh1IXdkVrspAJZMlYD6hpqZtHUKokzQuHnApVQiu 666P19YQE5wFkUJRNKu/ak+8cOad5Gxy7AeSdrYw=
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 15:51:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Mirja Kuehlewind , Jay Daley , John C Klensin
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns
References: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
From: Eliot Lear
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------CN6jvs600aPZm0G7s9jq2XNe"
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 14:52:14 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--------------CN6jvs600aPZm0G7s9jq2XNe
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------mTM9bPMToHAklEozq8xPpqun";
protected-headers="v1"
From: Eliot Lear
To: Mirja Kuehlewind , Jay Daley
, John C Klensin
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns
Message-ID:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on
-07)
References:
<7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To:
--------------mTM9bPMToHAklEozq8xPpqun
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------EeAt0RmQ8ARnkeY0JvXL3Iw1"
--------------EeAt0RmQ8ARnkeY0JvXL3Iw1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------UGcu0Dsglwwgo5baKe0ERiwj"
--------------UGcu0Dsglwwgo5baKe0ERiwj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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=
--------------UGcu0Dsglwwgo5baKe0ERiwj
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mirja,
On 03.01.22 14:43, Mirja Kuehlewind
wrote:
This is the text in draft:
"The IETF LL=
C
will form a selection committee, including members from the
community, that will be responsible for making a
recommendation to the IETF LLC for the RSCE role.=
=E2=80=9D=
[snip]
=
However,
I would also=C2=A0like to note that th text says the LCC Bo=
ard
forms the selection committee and not the ED. While these
are internals on how the LLC Board manages itself, I
would=C2=A0assume that=E2=80=99s rather a job for the LLC=C2=
=A0Board chair
with approval of the whole (community-selected) board than
the ED. This issue was discussed and confirmed
(changing=C2=A0responsibility from the ED to the=C2=A0whole=
LLC
board in=C2=A0GitHub issue #40).
Yes, that was indeed Issue 40 which you opened in April and was
closed after we discussed it in detail and came to a conclusion in
July.=C2=A0 However, by design, the text above does not refe=
r
to the board, but rather to the LLC.=C2=A0 The sentiment that carri=
ed
the day at the time was perhaps best summarized by Martin Thomson:<=
/p>
Split the difference and say the LLC is
responsible, this would likely fall to the Executive Director,
but no need to explicitly specify that
(See the notes=
).
It's not that the LLC board DOES decide or that the ED decides on
the RSCE position, but rather it is for the the LLC board to
decide whether to delegate that decision.
What I am drawing from all of this, by the way, is the importance
of closing this document, because people really are losing context
of the decisions that have been made.=C2=A0 The chairs will have mo=
re
to say on that shortly.
Eliot
--------------UGcu0Dsglwwgo5baKe0ERiwj--
--------------EeAt0RmQ8ARnkeY0JvXL3Iw1
Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP public key
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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3D
=3DjPt/
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
--------------EeAt0RmQ8ARnkeY0JvXL3Iw1--
--------------mTM9bPMToHAklEozq8xPpqun--
--------------CN6jvs600aPZm0G7s9jq2XNe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
wsB5BAABCAAjFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmHTDYEFAwAAAAAACgkQh7ZrRtnSejPi
Swf9GOb9mzD0kY6wL8JMWHVgv1IKdDwWcIELLgrff7BVfuuNNeYvlksKj3PHEWgWH1fuUE+xGyrG
Rvk2PncvycwO+3etNFQ3yLIfqJ1Vyw+gK9aTK7ATOgtjG+xcKHAPCFvmFz2B6dzTTK14QTN2ffQa
A3xB4UosBaH499MIUfvpxPqswe2h125m4wTvB8zHobD4F/QfcbcFD7qwLkyzbnNq3QRcRUpodgVG
8QXBVbe4FS4A5pxbEauz31F8mnkkbvN+cn9J7qsqs1Bm3NX7ZifL6k0t5kr3Q7zP1QoDR/cyzOxu
Vpn2YioLPt9+D94MFe8UTmEbrYfxxPNzVlW/aApfwQ==
=nLbl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------CN6jvs600aPZm0G7s9jq2XNe--
From nobody Mon Jan 3 07:24:05 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28ADE3A0A19; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 07:24:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVvPUAFmUHGB; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 07:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 988393A0A13; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 07:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p200300dee733e700114c3388f1dd340c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e733:e700:114c:3388:f1dd:340c]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1n4PBh-0005kC-FW; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:23:53 +0100
From: Mirja Kuehlewind
Message-Id:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8FAEAA3E-86BD-4680-938F-3FA6105BE0A6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:23:52 +0100
In-Reply-To:
Cc: Jay Daley , John C Klensin , rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns
To: Eliot Lear
References: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1641223438;5f5d6403;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1n4PBh-0005kC-FW
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 15:24:04 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_8FAEAA3E-86BD-4680-938F-3FA6105BE0A6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Hi Elliot,
I=E2=80=99m not disagreeing, nor do I want to reopen this issue but now =
that you state it this way it feels to me it needs a bit of =
clarification.
First I was assuming that when we say IETF LLC here, we actually mean =
the Board as the IETF LCC Board is defined as "multi-member "manager" of =
the IETF LLC=E2=80=9D in RFC8711. Decision have to be made by humans and =
not an abstract entity and therefore the board would be responsible =
here.
Further, the IETF LLC is mention two times here: 1) to form the =
selection committee, 2) to make a final decision on the RSCE. The board =
can delegate the task to =E2=80=9Ccreate=E2=80=9D the search committee =
to anybody any time, however, the responsibility for these decisions =
stays with the board from my point of view. I don=E2=80=99t think they =
can actually delegate a =E2=80=9Cdecision=E2=80=9D.
Mirja
P.S.: I reviewed the notes you linked below and if you read them at =
whole and particularly Jay=E2=80=99s comments (e.g. "the LLC board is =
the final sign-off=E2=80=9D), I believe this also reflect my assumption =
that then board is responsible when we say IETF LLC in the text. The =
sentence you cited is out of context is from the beginning of the =
discussion and not the end. At that point the discussion was about the =
question if we need to mention a search (or selection) committee at all =
in the document or lave this entirely to the LLC.
> On 3. Jan 2022, at 15:51, Eliot Lear wrote:
>=20
> Hi Mirja,
>=20
> On 03.01.22 14:43, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>> This is the text in draft:
>>=20
>> "The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including members from =
the community, that will be responsible for making a recommendation to =
the IETF LLC for the RSCE role.=E2=80=9D
>=20
>> [snip]
>=20
>> However, I would also like to note that th text says the LCC Board =
forms the selection committee and not the ED. While these are internals =
on how the LLC Board manages itself, I would assume that=E2=80=99s =
rather a job for the LLC Board chair with approval of the whole =
(community-selected) board than the ED. This issue was discussed and =
confirmed (changing responsibility from the ED to the whole LLC board in =
GitHub issue #40).
> Yes, that was indeed Issue 40 which you opened in April and was closed =
after we discussed it in detail and came to a conclusion in July. =
However, by design, the text above does not refer to the board, but =
rather to the LLC. The sentiment that carried the day at the time was =
perhaps best summarized by Martin Thomson:
>=20
>=20
>> Split the difference and say the LLC is responsible, this would =
likely fall to the Executive Director, but no need to explicitly specify =
that
> (See the notes ).
>=20
> It's not that the LLC board DOES decide or that the ED decides on the =
RSCE position, but rather it is for the the LLC board to decide whether =
to delegate that decision.
>=20
> What I am drawing from all of this, by the way, is the importance of =
closing this document, because people really are losing context of the =
decisions that have been made. The chairs will have more to say on that =
shortly.
>=20
> Eliot
>=20
>
--Apple-Mail=_8FAEAA3E-86BD-4680-938F-3FA6105BE0A6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Hi =
Elliot,
I=E2=80=99m =
not disagreeing, nor do I want to reopen this issue but now that you =
state it this way it feels to me it needs a bit of =
clarification.
First I was assuming that when we say IETF LLC here, we =
actually mean the Board as the IETF LCC Board is defined as "multi-member "manager" of the IETF LLC=E2=80=9D=
in RFC8711. Decision have to be made by humans and not =
an abstract entity and therefore the board would =
be responsible here.
Further, the IETF LLC is mention two =
times here: 1) to form the selection committee, 2) to make a final =
decision on the RSCE. The board can delegate the task to =E2=80=9Ccreate=E2=
=80=9D the search committee to anybody any time, however, the =
responsibility for these decisions stays with the board from my point of =
view. I don=E2=80=99t think they can actually delegate a =
=E2=80=9Cdecision=E2=80=9D.
Mirja
P.S.: I reviewed the notes you linked below and if you read =
them at whole and particularly Jay=E2=80=99s comments (e.g. "the LLC board is the final =
sign-off=E2=80=9D), I believe this also reflect my =
assumption that then board is responsible when we say IETF LLC =
in the text. The sentence you cited is out of context is from the =
beginning of the discussion and not the end. At that point the =
discussion was about the question if we need to mention a search =
(or selection) committee at all in the document or lave this =
entirely to the LLC.
On 3. =
Jan 2022, at 15:51, Eliot Lear <
lear@lear.ch> wrote:
=20
=20
Hi Mirja,
On 03.01.22 14:43, Mirja Kuehlewind
wrote:
This is the text in draft:
"The IETF =
LLC
will form a selection committee, including members from the
community, that will be responsible for making a
recommendation to the IETF LLC for the RSCE =
role.=E2=80=9D
[snip]
However,
I would also like to note that th text says the LCC =
Board
forms the selection committee and not the ED. While these
are internals on how the LLC Board manages itself, I
would assume that=E2=80=99s rather a job for the =
LLC Board chair
with approval of the whole (community-selected) board than
the ED. This issue was discussed and confirmed
(changing responsibility from the ED to =
the whole LLC
board in GitHub issue #40).
Yes, that was indeed Issue 40 which you =
opened in April and was
closed after we discussed it in detail and came to a conclusion in
July. However, by design, the text above does not refer
to the board, but rather to the LLC. The sentiment that =
carried
the day at the time was perhaps best summarized by Martin =
Thomson:
Split the difference and say the LLC is
responsible, this would likely fall to the Executive Director,
but no need to explicitly specify that
(See the
notes).
It's not that the =
LLC board DOES decide or that the ED decides on
the RSCE position, but rather it is for the the LLC board to
decide whether to delegate that decision.
What I =
am drawing from all of this, by the way, is the importance
of closing this document, because people really are losing context
of the decisions that have been made. The chairs will have =
more
to say on that shortly.
Eliot
<OpenPGP_0x87=
B66B46D9D27A33.asc>
=
--Apple-Mail=_8FAEAA3E-86BD-4680-938F-3FA6105BE0A6--
From nobody Mon Jan 3 08:10:14 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EBB3A073D; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:10:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qs726QbYoLBj; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:10:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E23FA3A06E7; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:10:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.129] (77-58-147-26.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.147.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 203GA3fW2464819 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:10:03 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1641226203; bh=PXQFvr0WcEHUqrVdhiboZcR/g+PTszwWFQOrbcCkXYk=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=lzf15QGqhyJGjnERvz2+zxrLLe2VLqj2HwSBqU/qTrIC8CZklYg4SOhzY0XFlVkE3 74zBdoWdy2dyKV+79dlSehOjnhVc/zFSssXpvg8alVDPmN46We3sSCwc5Uo6UEXS7H IHOeNXprWKcViIXwKyfHVBwZicot+5hIStkHt23c=
Message-ID: <37a4179f-b1ac-4cb8-d69d-f1b65d1c08f7@lear.ch>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:10:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Mirja Kuehlewind
Cc: Jay Daley , John C Klensin , rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns
References: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
From: Eliot Lear
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------XLkMaGfXg8oENOKBJX0qFVpd"
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:10:12 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--------------XLkMaGfXg8oENOKBJX0qFVpd
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0Ng0tXD6dLWBjHE7mqhRWfvV";
protected-headers="v1"
From: Eliot Lear
To: Mirja Kuehlewind
Cc: Jay Daley , John C Klensin ,
rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns
Message-ID: <37a4179f-b1ac-4cb8-d69d-f1b65d1c08f7@lear.ch>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on
-07)
References:
<7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To:
--------------0Ng0tXD6dLWBjHE7mqhRWfvV
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------X1lh7mTWgujMKhbUovt4HPFe"
--------------X1lh7mTWgujMKhbUovt4HPFe
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------K17bM6uK2lHhnYSgG0Lv9PA9"
--------------K17bM6uK2lHhnYSgG0Lv9PA9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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--------------K17bM6uK2lHhnYSgG0Lv9PA9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mirja
On 03.01.22 16:23, Mirja Kuehlewind
wrote:
Further, the IETF LLC is mention two times here: 1)=
to form the selection committee, 2) to make a final decision on
the RSCE. The board can delegate the task to =E2=80=9Ccreate=E2=80=
=9D the search
committee to anybody any time, however, the responsibility for
these decisions stays with the board from my point of view. I
don=E2=80=99t think they can actually delegate a =E2=80=9Cdecisio=
n=E2=80=9D.
Mirja
P.S.: I reviewed the notes you linked below and if
you read them at whole and particularly Jay=E2=80=99s comments (e=
=2Eg. "the LLC board is the fina=
l
sign-off=E2=80=9D),=C2=A0I=C2=A0believe=C2=A0this also refl=
ect my assumption
that=C2=A0then board is=C2=A0responsible when we say IETF L=
LC in the
text.=C2=A0The sentence you cited is out of context is from=
the
beginning of=C2=A0the=C2=A0discussion and not the end.
While I am fully confident that Jay's statement was and probably
remains true, the board can never-the-less decide to delegate
later.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Nowhere does it say they cannot; and our text ac=
tually
reaffirms that (we explicitly call out the board elsewhere in the
doc, but not there).=C2=A0 My point is simply that you should not m=
ake
the assumption that this text constrains the current board or
future boards to not delegate; and you may wish to take that into
account in terms of how you consider the current matter.=C2=A0 As a=
practical matter, I doubt they would delegate this hiring decision
for at least the foreseeable future, but that is me merely
speculating.
Eliot
--------------K17bM6uK2lHhnYSgG0Lv9PA9--
--------------X1lh7mTWgujMKhbUovt4HPFe
Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP public key
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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3D
=3DjPt/
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
--------------X1lh7mTWgujMKhbUovt4HPFe--
--------------0Ng0tXD6dLWBjHE7mqhRWfvV--
--------------XLkMaGfXg8oENOKBJX0qFVpd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
wsB5BAABCAAjFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmHTH9oFAwAAAAAACgkQh7ZrRtnSejNn
Owf8CHo/wHDkwuXmtbCdEl6AtO8wvbOZR7Bkgb2G8VdCBLNE5obU+AU6WXWRRHUMDSOQkpRGX46f
eetwiylBorNIPBHhG1wSHGhwkkwVesg6giufg+DJgvQgwWZYQb0b37yZxfrYZe3c5EAW51gUwNZd
i7yAfvaBRyfx6ZT/Q6VGPgvHiWp3EYNDeow+BNXdr2IitpZPHOLzgz0psxaZZj0c0LOfqUjxbu/E
T9bwiwfoBtQj1cYRip+2C1OfYa49ExvGvTnFgOO5VD0nBlnRADHBR0DXnwHFXCUrgH5ujrSMGvin
prG94ocpQpvRiRG7R0waFpw+7pnr9NLyyqhgDY0LrQ==
=eGyZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------XLkMaGfXg8oENOKBJX0qFVpd--
From nobody Mon Jan 3 08:34:14 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5133A07B9; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:34:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D6BhIkfR4a10; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:34:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E0583A07B7; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1n4QHY-0006vQ-LH; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 11:34:00 -0500
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 11:33:55 -0500
From: John C Klensin
To: Mirja Kuehlewind , Eliot Lear
cc: Jay Daley , rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns
Message-ID: <2939BCCA4CA75D29739F59D4@PSB>
In-Reply-To:
References: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:34:12 -0000
Eliot, Mirja,
There is another piece of this story which is that the LLC Board
has delegated almost complete authority to the Executive
Director an action that the incorporation document explicitly
allows. Jay pointed that out to me a long time ago when I
raised the question of whether the Board had reviewed the text
of a particular proposal/consultation before it was sent out.
At least as I understand "decision", they can (and have)
delegated (at least many of) those. That is actually reasonable
and appropriate: If the ED needed to get Board review prior to
making every decision and acting on it, the result would be
complete paralysis. Given that those delegations of authority
exist (and the Board does not proactively intervene), if we say
"the LLC", it is up to Jay's discretion when and how much to
consult the Board with the range of possibilities stretching
from "hand the problem back over to them and step back" to
"inform them in a period report what has been done". While
presumably neither his intent in the comment Mirja quotes nor
what I would expect would happen, even the latter is probably
consistent with the Board having final signoff.
Jason, Jay, or Counsel would need to comment on this, but it
isn't even clear to me that we can mandate "the Board must be
involved before the selection committee is finalized". We could
give guidance to the ED (which I assume we could trust Jay to
accept and follow) or we could request that the Board make such
a policy, but we basically can't tell the LLC what to do or how
to manage itself.
So I would go a step further than Mirja: if our intent is to be
sure the membership of the selection committee is a group
process rather than selection by an individual, we'd best spell
that out, at least as clear guidance.
And, Eliot, I know you are anxious to be done with this. So am
I and I assume everyone else here shares that desire. However,
I am even more anxious to get things right and not leave loose
ends lying around that could easily turn into surprises and
messes to be cleaned up later. If we had a discussion and
reached a conclusion before, I have no desire to reopen it.
However, if things various of us consider important parts of
that discussion didn't make it into the text, or if
complications or related issues become apparent only after
looking at the text, those topics should not be classified and
suppressed as "reopening" or "relitigating" -- they are just new
issues that build on the older (and settled) ones.
john
--On Monday, January 3, 2022 16:23 +0100 Mirja Kuehlewind
wrote:
> Hi Elliot,
>
> I'm not disagreeing, nor do I want to reopen this issue but
> now that you state it this way it feels to me it needs a bit
> of clarification.
>
> First I was assuming that when we say IETF LLC here, we
> actually mean the Board as the IETF LCC Board is defined as
> "multi-member "manager" of the IETF LLC" in RFC8711.
> Decision have to be made by humans and not an abstract entity
> and therefore the board would be responsible here.
>
> Further, the IETF LLC is mention two times here: 1) to form
> the selection committee, 2) to make a final decision on the
> RSCE. The board can delegate the task to "create" the
> search committee to anybody any time, however, the
> responsibility for these decisions stays with the board from
> my point of view. I don't think they can actually delegate a
> "decision".
>
> Mirja
>
> P.S.: I reviewed the notes you linked below and if you read
> them at whole and particularly Jay's comments (e.g. "the LLC
> board is the final sign-off"), I believe this also reflect
> my assumption that then board is responsible when we say IETF
> LLC in the text. The sentence you cited is out of context is
> from the beginning of the discussion and not the end. At that
> point the discussion was about the question if we need to
> mention a search (or selection) committee at all in the
> document or lave this entirely to the LLC.
From nobody Mon Jan 3 09:24:37 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA293A095D; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id neLZ6GJc7Fda; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA7BE3A0962; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p200300dee733e700114c3388f1dd340c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e733:e700:114c:3388:f1dd:340c]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1n4R4J-0003Pz-UW; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 18:24:24 +0100
From: Mirja Kuehlewind
Message-Id: <4759EF04-586C-4288-A460-6F38A228A6F8@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_189387D3-53F2-47CB-ABE6-4BEF78BC9FD8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 18:24:22 +0100
In-Reply-To: <2939BCCA4CA75D29739F59D4@PSB>
Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org, Jay Daley , Michael StJohns
To: John C Klensin
References: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org> <2939BCCA4CA75D29739F59D4@PSB>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1641230671;d9b71b97;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1n4R4J-0003Pz-UW
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 17:24:36 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_189387D3-53F2-47CB-ABE6-4BEF78BC9FD8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
> On 3. Jan 2022, at 17:33, John C Klensin wrote:
>=20
> At least as I understand "decision", they can (and have)
> delegated (at least many of) those. That is actually reasonable
> and appropriate: If the ED needed to get Board review prior to
> making every decision and acting on it, the result would be
> complete paralysis.
Yes, sorry I was not putting this clearly. When I said they can not =
delegate a =E2=80=9Cdecision=E2=80=9D, I was putting the word decision =
in quotes, because I don=E2=80=99t think the can delegate the =
responsibility for the decision. Yes, they have to delegate decisions, =
especially those related to more daily business, but that doesn=E2=80=99t =
mean the board can get them self out of any consequences of those =
decisions.=20
> Given that those delegations of authority
> exist (and the Board does not proactively intervene), if we say
> "the LLC", it is up to Jay's discretion when and how much to
> consult the Board with the range of possibilities stretching
> from "hand the problem back over to them and step back" to
> "inform them in a period report what has been done=E2=80=9D.
That=E2=80=99s not how I would interpret that. It=E2=80=99s the board =
that first has to delegate any authority to the ED and respectively they =
can at any time reiterate that delegation and get involved if =
needed/wanted. So I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s the ED=E2=80=99s =
discretion when and how to involve the board.
Mirja
P.S.: We don=E2=80=99t want anything like RSOC back, especially not for =
the oversight part of the responsibility, however, this is the text in =
RFC6635 on RSOC regarding the relation to the IAB and especially hiring =
a a reference:
The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general,
it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed
the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB.
Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and
recommendations the benefit of the doubt.
For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and
firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final
decision is the responsibility of the IAB.
--Apple-Mail=_189387D3-53F2-47CB-ABE6-4BEF78BC9FD8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
At least as I understand =
"decision", they can (and have)
delegated (at least many of) those. That is actually =
reasonable
and =
appropriate: If the ED needed to get Board review prior to
making every decision and acting =
on it, the result would be
complete paralysis.
Yes, sorry I was not putting this clearly. When I =
said they can not delegate a =E2=80=9Cdecision=E2=80=9D, I was putting =
the word decision in quotes, because I don=E2=80=99t think the can =
delegate the responsibility for the decision. Yes, they have to delegate =
decisions, especially those related to more daily business, but that =
doesn=E2=80=99t mean the board can get them self out of any consequences =
of those decisions.
Given that those delegations of authority
exist (and the Board does not =
proactively intervene), if we say
"the LLC", it is up to Jay's discretion when and how much =
to
consult the =
Board with the range of possibilities stretching
from "hand the problem back over =
to them and step back" to
"inform them in a period report what has been =
done=E2=80=9D.
That=E2=80=99s not how I would interpret that. =
It=E2=80=99s the board that first has to delegate any authority to the =
ED and respectively they can at any time reiterate that delegation and =
get involved if needed/wanted. So I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s the =
ED=E2=80=99s discretion when and how to involve the board.
Mirja
P.S.: We don=E2=80=99t =
want anything like RSOC back, especially not for the oversight part of =
the responsibility, however, this is the text in RFC6635 on RSOC =
regarding the relation to the IAB and especially hiring a a =
reference:
The RSOC will act with =
authority delegated from the IAB: in general,
it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed
the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB.
Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and
recommendations the benefit of the doubt.
For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and
firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final
decision is the responsibility of the IAB.
=
--Apple-Mail=_189387D3-53F2-47CB-ABE6-4BEF78BC9FD8--
From nobody Mon Jan 3 10:04:55 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E6D3A064F for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 10:04:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6cMK9BwfigzA for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 10:04:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90D8A3A064B for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 10:04:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:9455:5e97:5df3:fdf9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 440E21D2204; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 20:04:35 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1641233075; bh=G/62wmqGS6p+ttlooGY4HlA5O3lweOZ/K/zsPkOWDSs=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=mLJFTfTkdfe3CAy6qAJ2Xq1Z5/s0cQjkjj1xOI0hFuw4hN7VW72BDZ9rPEGTnJzvA rRt7GY9/RVJ8JVWfxvnKZvWFoH3JwXF5zRv3In1zdwdfw+4lKG0w3Nsemj8gRs2Gwd pr4d0QqcbX/Nan/wBFzSYhKopq3Vil8phZwtVNG0=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FA50631B-9763-40C8-8C4A-58792BA9CEBE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\))
From: Lars Eggert
In-Reply-To: <2939BCCA4CA75D29739F59D4@PSB>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 20:04:32 +0200
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= , Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org, Jay Daley , Michael StJohns
Message-Id:
References: <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org> <2939BCCA4CA75D29739F59D4@PSB>
To: John C Klensin
X-MailScanner-ID: 440E21D2204.AFFFB
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 18:04:54 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_FA50631B-9763-40C8-8C4A-58792BA9CEBE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Hi,
On 2022-1-3, at 18:33, John C Klensin wrote:
> At least as I understand "decision", they can (and have)
> delegated (at least many of) those. That is actually reasonable
> and appropriate: If the ED needed to get Board review prior to
> making every decision and acting on it, the result would be
> complete paralysis.
for context, please see =
https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_LLC_Delegated_Authorities_2020-0=
6-11.pdf (linked from =
https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/), which =
has the details about board-to-ED delegations.
Thanks,
Lars
--Apple-Mail=_FA50631B-9763-40C8-8C4A-58792BA9CEBE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=0Dcx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_FA50631B-9763-40C8-8C4A-58792BA9CEBE--
From nobody Mon Jan 3 16:20:18 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E973D3A12A0 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:20:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4xFeBlmuDwI for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x129.google.com (mail-il1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E94B3A129F for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x129.google.com with SMTP id d3so19680605ilr.10 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:20:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7ILDelc4huXvl1D+R7HAVuP7Ptpo2BrL1lYiSBvMC30=; b=rPeSYfZ4djIfsAEw4AYL3Rwd55XGfX9URKE3IosVO64uFai/ddOFkrtTUuWl+rZmCr u2e0Nii4dL/3gUd88AXmhvJfmmtP4aP1Olyw9uiyPFDiS71B+FrBTXELGFsRXh3F8rNx Cw65u0PuqET6BmKv1b7GQbcHMgzT75yRufRZS/CyhjFrnE/cxHwIJGRPIaN7DW2JuYEK tfxe8MiBhxlz8EIX/sNMO87oaH9dHl+KIu/EDmzmj4e7/GrLbQBSO7TmLgULkNQwTqnp JeluIxD2kt/hiAo4r0TyMMxI/Q2VKSZK/WUb7sWdLC/OUE+2ghWY/DTViexlYXSVHF3l upPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7ILDelc4huXvl1D+R7HAVuP7Ptpo2BrL1lYiSBvMC30=; b=E/sN+WQNA8z/mRzB9tA8Ws8E3/jWlrfIMJJ3BesBVvmMi9AjcoNpkdQDabdhIk2afk UCgmN/RPr73A7IOpkRY2xcLqEcGO4QsGHk4SE5YlvYlmHi9MfWj/X9jUzVkMZauvokZ9 s7eaNl/PlQcTUMBbO3KaB2csRQ8IbPq944d0rR6c2l5MlEEsa74mB61ypjluENHti2rj uyhgkP7plFcyDEcjyXv13cTyqUhyiGyENnLxnkb3lu+L7Hugywec+i9Y+v7IPuIZ07Ek QgdqF5yFpdVdn+gY3k5WhiET9j6OIUJ52Royq5iXD8IBcmWEasT8kZWRoS+fVxXfmefY 0Eog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lCAdE0KBIvoVR7uZbucLz0SZ0nde8ZV1joEZIRt/Hu7zaAkBc +vttuqlOKpWkU+b7W/mReRcN1LkBfoFQraYeKhGGPqJ/3fAtkQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzS6TL7eIl9V3o7Pmff/YMkmpyeMkYhzdnzaMB1uwCCQh3j5mRBy5ZKCn7FO28NSety//Irp4vedOCc9ZUloUs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1747:: with SMTP id y7mr19083975ill.10.1641255613389; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:20:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Eric Rescorla
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:19:37 -0800
Message-ID:
To: rfced-future@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d26fa205d4b699f8"
Archived-At:
Subject: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:20:17 -0000
--000000000000d26fa205d4b699f8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi folks,
I have reviewed this document and feel that it is generally
in good shape. I have made a small editorial PR
(https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148)
and filed four issues. As I know some people don't like using
Github, I recap them here.
Issue 144: The current text seems to say that we would need
WG consensus for any other mode of operation than a mailing
list, including a meeting. I understand that people want
to require consensus to use Github and I'm not trying
to change that, but do we really need to require consensus
to have a meeting?
https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/144
Issue 145: I had understood that we believed that the only
two valid reasons for a CONCERN were:
* The proposal represents a serious problem for one or more of the
individual streams.
* The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious
harm to the overall Series, including harm to the long-term
health and viability of the Series.
I see that to this we have added
* Comments received during a community call for comment need to be
addressed, as described under Section 3.2.3.
Two points:
(1) I don't actually see clear text that the list isn't exhaustive
If we agree it is, we should say so.
(2) Assuming we agree it's exhaustive, then the comments reason
allows non-conforming reasons to be used as the basis of
a CONCERN by just saying that a community member made them.
My proposal would be to state that it's exhaustive and to require
the comments to either be about one of the two reasons or that
the comment hasn't been responded to, but not that the response
wasn't to the satisfaction of the RSAB.
https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/145
Issue 146: The current text describes the following core RPC
responsibilities:
The core responsibility of the RPC is continuous improvement
regarding the implementation of RFC policies (including the
dimensions of document quality, timeliness of production, and
accessibility of results), while taking into account issues raised
by the community through the RSWG and by the stream approving
bodies.
I agree continuous improvement is good, but I tend to think the
core responsibility is just to publish the documents at all.
https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/146
Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certain records,
e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally
happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
Do these records need to be public?
https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147
-Ekr
--000000000000d26fa205d4b699f8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi folks,
I have reviewed this document and feel th=
at it is generally
in good shape. I have made a small editorial PR
(<=
a href=3D"https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148">ht=
tps://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148)
and fil=
ed four issues. As I know some people don't like using
Github, I rec=
ap them here.
Issue 144: The current text seems to say that we w=
ould need
WG consensus for any other mode of operation than a mailing
list, including a meeting. I understand that people want
to require con=
sensus to use Github and I'm not trying
to change that, but do we re=
ally need to require consensus
to have a meeting?
https://github.com=
/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/144Issue 145: I h=
ad understood that we believed that the only
two valid reasons for a CON=
CERN were:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* The proposal represents a serious problem =
for one or more of the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 individual streams.
=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serio=
us
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 harm to the overall Series, including harm to th=
e long-term
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 health and viability of the Series.
=
I see that to this we have added
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* =C2=A0Comments r=
eceived during a community call for comment need to be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 addressed, as described under Section 3.2.3.
Two points:
=
(1) I don't actually see clear text that the list isn't exhaustive<=
br>If we agree it is, we should say so.
(2) Assuming we agree it'=
;s exhaustive, then the comments reason
allows non-conforming reasons to=
be used as the basis of
a CONCERN by just saying that a community membe=
r made them.
My proposal would be to state that it's exhaustive =
and to require
the comments to either be about one of the two reasons or=
that
the comment hasn't been responded to, but not that the respons=
e
wasn't to the satisfaction of the RSAB.
https://github.com/int=
archboard/program-rfced-future/issues/145Issue 146: The cur=
rent text describes the following core RPC
responsibilities:
=C2=
=A0 =C2=A0The core responsibility of the RPC is continuous improvement
=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0regarding the implementation of RFC policies (including the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0dimensions of document quality, timeliness of production, and=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0accessibility of results), while taking into account issue=
s raised
=C2=A0 =C2=A0by the community through the RSWG and by the strea=
m approving
=C2=A0 =C2=A0bodies.
I agree continuous improvement i=
s good, but I tend to think the
core responsibility is just to publish t=
he documents at all.
https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-futu=
re/issues/146Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certa=
in records,
e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally<=
br>happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
Do these re=
cords need to be public?
https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-=
future/issues/147-Ekr
--000000000000d26fa205d4b699f8--
From nobody Mon Jan 3 16:39:23 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15ECF3A12ED for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:39:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.812
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=wrgz3cE0; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=O/jt2TiR
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NHBhIXQKhVy9 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:39:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BACAF3A12EB for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:39:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32813201DA0; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 19:39:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:39:17 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h= message-id:date:mime-version:to:references:from:subject :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=U GX2ogCGzk3YilSJaEcOYEH1eqKxPRvCIRBwlgJBtpA=; b=wrgz3cE0yg0A4eGwd b69sNp1FTBK7x70anSRfK3/s+WeQQNhYzuR/8GkeKOvpFI5mZuDhNVKccmoRwjeW EKWJmA57Gx6xD1i0GAPl2tGntyuL/A2I7cNFY1v0hm1gFSVvQ7KMwKj0jOlnY1oI MqhAxwiESuY9OKwVNMkETruVH/YjfQYjq3OWahvOhOqpBSNu+zAxzt/9Ok4/HGe/ Bp9s4dcZChhoNSJsN+S+mzdEAGZucVSSKfhFBnqhd57oGW7iRL548yTh3zkpjMfm 8PFI59w0ExJphpgjtuKWe1j5EusWYBT8RjMsdDARcT3nOUGdZQ6aVnxkpae3TIjp Blezw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=UGX2ogCGzk3YilSJaEcOYEH1eqKxPRvCIRBwlgJBt pA=; b=O/jt2TiR+SvYgg8xXxGNaVwMTLID4HoAtFuR5bomQEWaH9w+vYnk2KObe oQqbmZRk3NRKxZazAVxCbb5d+UYarrS3x0WMc2suxKsITPrH40cFtLqPtWKIhSht 0H+Gh089lBs6IebC6DwptOwj+P55tw071PHmeI0ATXuXmHP+mSgO13vcAaywJI4Y 8MiOhlx/k6MyCCRrPdC8CS6DxjYKLWrd0X1k6szsXBH8QndkmS5EFmK/qwZ5QoTf /JQ3RQ5A/4HeqxZ72F+gxOAyR1tUdlr0wwESKXfB30IvB1j/aTn92Z84hd9rgDAB cfHEjn98N19KWarIlyfiB1DRdiqiA==
X-ME-Sender:
X-ME-Received:
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrudefvddgvdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefkffggfgfvfhfhufgjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghrucfurghinhhtqdetnhgurhgvuceoshhtphgv thgvrhesshhtphgvthgvrhdrihhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeduleelffejkeehhe eigeejhfdvgfevkeelfefggfehkeelvdfgfeffheeiffeileenucffohhmrghinhepghhi thhhuhgsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepshhtphgvthgvrhesshhtphgvthgvrhdrihhm
X-ME-Proxy:
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 19:39:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:39:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Eric Rescorla , rfced-future@iab.org
References:
From: Peter Saint-Andre
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:39:22 -0000
On 1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have reviewed this document and feel that it is generally
> in good shape. I have made a small editorial PR
> (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148
> )
> and filed four issues. As I know some people don't like using
> Github, I recap them here.
>
>
> Issue 144: The current text seems to say that we would need
> WG consensus for any other mode of operation than a mailing
> list, including a meeting. I understand that people want
> to require consensus to use Github and I'm not trying
> to change that, but do we really need to require consensus
> to have a meeting?
> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/144
>
I tend to think not.
> Issue 145: I had understood that we believed that the only
> two valid reasons for a CONCERN were:
>
> * The proposal represents a serious problem for one or more of the
> individual streams.
>
> * The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious
> harm to the overall Series, including harm to the long-term
> health and viability of the Series.
>
> I see that to this we have added
>
> * Comments received during a community call for comment need to be
> addressed, as described under Section 3.2.3.
>
> Two points:
>
> (1) I don't actually see clear text that the list isn't exhaustive
> If we agree it is, we should say so.
>
> (2) Assuming we agree it's exhaustive, then the comments reason
> allows non-conforming reasons to be used as the basis of
> a CONCERN by just saying that a community member made them.
Heh, I had not seen that backdoor.
One way to look at it is that the community call for comment could
surface issues that meet the first two criteria, and if so it's the
responsibility of the RSAB to bring those back to the review process by
raising CONCERN positions. This way, arbitrary community concerns that
don't meet the first two criteria can't get special consideration.
> My proposal would be to state that it's exhaustive and to require
> the comments to either be about one of the two reasons or that
> the comment hasn't been responded to, but not that the response
> wasn't to the satisfaction of the RSAB.
> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/145
>
>
>
> Issue 146: The current text describes the following core RPC
> responsibilities:
>
> The core responsibility of the RPC is continuous improvement
> regarding the implementation of RFC policies (including the
> dimensions of document quality, timeliness of production, and
> accessibility of results), while taking into account issues raised
> by the community through the RSWG and by the stream approving
> bodies.
>
> I agree continuous improvement is good, but I tend to think the
> core responsibility is just to publish the documents at all.
> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/146
>
That's sensible.
> Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certain records,
> e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally
> happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
> Do these records need to be public?
> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147
>
It's not clear to me whether all record-keeping needs to be public. It
might be acceptable that records are kept and available on request if
needed (e.g., in case of an appeal).
Thanks for the review.
Peter
From nobody Mon Jan 3 16:43:45 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607C33A12F9 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:43:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMoOkQtcZoGv for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12c.google.com (mail-il1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 184ED3A12F6 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id j6so27106072ila.4 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:43:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ql7v8/Kmuc72wbgORrWbvTMOOulkJTJiml7YfQi7wpg=; b=C8lAHzhCXb0fHQPoeXzDr5iQZRhenHHLpeCz+KDRlsD9PO4nhToWw/NYVHvfRHD5Ef 1UDiXB5Fg7nTMlO6a5/6tKj8oPRhWCToBvkE2I9edC6ccdpYITYpmGsWe0qG4aGZAoL9 JozDa3jsVD3LvoQs59XUdp1JKfQOAPZsZVBP/sFaLTaku5Fwy2aD07q01zcEoRBfuhu5 CCSIQlR2k45SLJsM7ENftDwsAxbJQMIbo8d/1Sos1FU1u6azHmwVa2lVnQs07jVpdv1C EBd/Axt2y1HTcqDS4Gvolx17TTx7skBggxQjEIrGtP6F0gh9I/pmK0s47GTz7cF2b2kR D4MA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ql7v8/Kmuc72wbgORrWbvTMOOulkJTJiml7YfQi7wpg=; b=AsV2NHE02/YCiaB70rekmXG4UYpHbYVIPWh45ze3ZVG5CvBUi4mh1e50Te1D18SLQ0 DGi4xqEPZipjM7OTZNUO1CSEMDKUjWqpAPetQzBW79a1LnZShvqWpnxw++jkXNelN+mM GxrA4HMYY9oj+1pcbq9Tij6HBfpVRdJ5uScQR6/2QhiBilA4jxnPWIl0V6GFDlgl4rgG 0eqx/YxAB43hhwnh0ZPV641lHMAf6nOv3mUQWSYhiHRuLO1AXaWVE7dRlttjZ+E4zdBO +dgL0LoJDb1NxZ2YtXJWILnVgv22NCQxstxJRBod4mmJeFAmxhyAjjUQA6X5qkBMbFDg 54yQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53353k6F39c56qlpIKoGRMxxRbys97a/sraC53Nf28qpvEyc/RrH PjnNw9fXnw17XmqxF2vPDivA91BWSmF0dG1jQAEtoTHXmEw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJylda4kAJafUovhjDfirE/t9ErTPzsEHigGjzGxOP2jDaLOqKN3tx01BYdhRT8LIIzcK8mAgRrwBC4tkrcGEfY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1b05:: with SMTP id i5mr23277750ilv.60.1641257016785; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:43:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
In-Reply-To:
From: Eric Rescorla
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:43:00 -0800
Message-ID:
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078956805d4b6ed9a"
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:43:43 -0000
--00000000000078956805d4b6ed9a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:39 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I have reviewed this document and feel that it is generally
> > in good shape. I have made a small editorial PR
> > (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148
> > )
> > and filed four issues. As I know some people don't like using
> > Github, I recap them here.
> >
> >
> > Issue 144: The current text seems to say that we would need
> > WG consensus for any other mode of operation than a mailing
> > list, including a meeting. I understand that people want
> > to require consensus to use Github and I'm not trying
> > to change that, but do we really need to require consensus
> > to have a meeting?
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/144
> >
>
> I tend to think not.
>
> > Issue 145: I had understood that we believed that the only
> > two valid reasons for a CONCERN were:
> >
> > * The proposal represents a serious problem for one or more of the
> > individual streams.
> >
> > * The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious
> > harm to the overall Series, including harm to the long-term
> > health and viability of the Series.
> >
> > I see that to this we have added
> >
> > * Comments received during a community call for comment need to be
> > addressed, as described under Section 3.2.3.
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > (1) I don't actually see clear text that the list isn't exhaustive
> > If we agree it is, we should say so.
> >
> > (2) Assuming we agree it's exhaustive, then the comments reason
> > allows non-conforming reasons to be used as the basis of
> > a CONCERN by just saying that a community member made them.
>
> Heh, I had not seen that backdoor.
>
> One way to look at it is that the community call for comment could
> surface issues that meet the first two criteria, and if so it's the
> responsibility of the RSAB to bring those back to the review process by
> raising CONCERN positions. This way, arbitrary community concerns that
> don't meet the first two criteria can't get special consideration.
>
Yes, that would work for me.
>
> > My proposal would be to state that it's exhaustive and to require
> > the comments to either be about one of the two reasons or that
> > the comment hasn't been responded to, but not that the response
> > wasn't to the satisfaction of the RSAB.
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/145
> >
> >
> >
> > Issue 146: The current text describes the following core RPC
> > responsibilities:
> >
> > The core responsibility of the RPC is continuous improvement
> > regarding the implementation of RFC policies (including the
> > dimensions of document quality, timeliness of production, and
> > accessibility of results), while taking into account issues raised
> > by the community through the RSWG and by the stream approving
> > bodies.
> >
> > I agree continuous improvement is good, but I tend to think the
> > core responsibility is just to publish the documents at all.
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/146
> >
>
> That's sensible.
>
> > Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certain records,
> > e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally
> > happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
> > Do these records need to be public?
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147
> >
>
> It's not clear to me whether all record-keeping needs to be public. It
> might be acceptable that records are kept and available on request if
> needed (e.g., in case of an appeal).
>
I think that would be OK. But do they keep records at all?
-Ekr
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> Peter
>
--00000000000078956805d4b6ed9a
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=
On =
1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have reviewed this document and feel that it is generally
> in good shape. I have made a small editorial PR
> (https://github.com/intarchboard/p=
rogram-rfced-future/pull/148
> <https://github.com/intarchboar=
d/program-rfced-future/pull/148>)
> and filed four issues. As I know some people don't like using
> Github, I recap them here.
>
>
> Issue 144: The current text seems to say that we would need
> WG consensus for any other mode of operation than a mailing
> list, including a meeting. I understand that people want
> to require consensus to use Github and I'm not trying
> to change that, but do we really need to require consensus
> to have a meeting?
> https://github.com/intarchboard/=
program-rfced-future/issues/144
> <https://github.com/intarchbo=
ard/program-rfced-future/issues/144>
I tend to think not.
> Issue 145: I had understood that we believed that the only
> two valid reasons for a CONCERN were:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* The proposal represents a serious problem for one=
or more of the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 individual streams.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* The RSAB member believes that the proposal would =
cause serious
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 harm to the overall Series, including harm =
to the long-term
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 health and viability of the Series.
>
> I see that to this we have added
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0* =C2=A0Comments received during a community call f=
or comment need to be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 addressed, as described under Section 3.2.3=
.
>
> Two points:
>
> (1) I don't actually see clear text that the list isn't exhaus=
tive
> If we agree it is, we should say so.
>
> (2) Assuming we agree it's exhaustive, then the comments reason
> allows non-conforming reasons to be used as the basis of
> a CONCERN by just saying that a community member made them.
Heh, I had not seen that backdoor.
One way to look at it is that the community call for comment could
surface issues that meet the first two criteria, and if so it's the
responsibility of the RSAB to bring those back to the review process by
raising CONCERN positions. This way, arbitrary community concerns that
don't meet the first two criteria can't get special consideration.<=
br>
Yes, that would work for me.
=
=C2=A0
> My proposal would be to state that it's exhaustive and to require<=
br>
> the comments to either be about one of the two reasons or that
> the comment hasn't been responded to, but not that the response
> wasn't to the satisfaction of the RSAB.
> https://github.com/intarchboard/=
program-rfced-future/issues/145
> <https://github.com/intarchbo=
ard/program-rfced-future/issues/145>
>
>
> Issue 146: The current text describes the following core RPC
> responsibilities:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The core responsibility of the RPC is continuous im=
provement
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0regarding the implementation of RFC policies (inclu=
ding the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0dimensions of document quality, timeliness of produ=
ction, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0accessibility of results), while taking into accoun=
t issues raised
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0by the community through the RSWG and by the stream=
approving
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bodies.
>
> I agree continuous improvement is good, but I tend to think the
> core responsibility is just to publish the documents at all.
> https://github.com/intarchboard/=
program-rfced-future/issues/146
> <https://github.com/intarchbo=
ard/program-rfced-future/issues/146>
That's sensible.
> Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certain records,
> e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally
> happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
> Do these records need to be public?
> https://github.com/intarchboard/=
program-rfced-future/issues/147
> <https://github.com/intarchbo=
ard/program-rfced-future/issues/147>
It's not clear to me whether all record-keeping needs to be public. It =
might be acceptable that records are kept and available on request if
needed (e.g., in case of an appeal).
I =
think that would be OK. But do they keep records at all?
-Ekr
=C2=A0
Thanks for the review.
Peter
--00000000000078956805d4b6ed9a--
From nobody Mon Jan 3 17:26:15 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B633A1397 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:26:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DjxN3sRnM5yF for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34F0D3A1396 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id v16so30082762pjn.1 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 17:26:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bFvQ4QBwwPIUoqgHJ8Sr/Bz9n3+zPFTXZCEFnNXlY1Q=; b=jJGXUIWbTA1F3Bk5WCVZ0xyfCuERHe2YiHtnC5hvwqVHkgZ6Yp31icaHAqxtoU4CwK U5f05aK0KLlHr6HLW/AlfnFJHP6fxjJ0hvgJteA2aqRl641bQK4jkNshs3PIBs89BMiE SnlyRJOZS2H34q+hkXhnS+A4NU6OEI2UTpXRe2fNGSI8d6QQ/zisfJEXclG+0R7L5YSq o5U/F4qc/R79wDF09qTwOpwc4x71OupSR9r8GtDZbHKedHloNKLzOZJHCg3F3o7yNGum 4pbhSC9a9j/MUinMWKVnOXHq9fOgDuMa3/Ola/imppOyLqGDNQs8/n9R9jHR76CfQr6N F2XA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bFvQ4QBwwPIUoqgHJ8Sr/Bz9n3+zPFTXZCEFnNXlY1Q=; b=FayIccEu/wiPoKC0d/gOTyUm5TMtEXwGEJTyS75lEi3wggIbVkUqyriJxarW1eEOV/ x1r+p2flW8A9h1ricAu8OSduPTc1bXKlnSikrlWz3ei918vzWVZYD5lMoldxxfStuH5f BBwslRqRxv8W4+9hNW2FWlgSDg/cGWCka4xdbnPXNYEkTkFJty8yMoY1m/Dryla+DewK tCJyRCVPVzedwyeFQQ1dZeX7lCBT5GVIn9Bxk4egeT6KfVjUn/mH5ktcFAy+rTmU8Aeb BnYuVjh7Yt3Hf9Thq0PRvl6Guj1wUviWJIfkRgtTul+tbOyL8aKK32pdtnccbDZta3Ev HDLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533VLFJWuXekY+WhUJvCv+Pwc8hP+xQNzCyZ05McLdd0Qyh4ImKT ABERFEgdI4Q2aLLkjN6dARR5IyaeMItRVQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxCiD8iBbIy3gYQnfrF40woUTbk983DY9DmTMDnEewMpKRMzB8pCc/80+L3FFONYHkwZLagYA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:384e:: with SMTP id nl14mr58894628pjb.243.1641259567316; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 17:26:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1071:1701:db7:d041:a2d:ce65? ([2406:e003:1071:1701:db7:d041:a2d:ce65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h3sm31926320pjk.48.2022.01.03.17.26.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Jan 2022 17:26:06 -0800 (PST)
To: Eric Rescorla , Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
References:
From: Brian E Carpenter
Message-ID: <06414ab1-c53f-e542-52ff-800b99c23ef1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:26:02 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At:
Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 147 [WGLC Review of the draft]
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 01:26:14 -0000
On 04-Jan-22 13:43, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On one point only:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:39 PM Peter Saint-Andre > wrote:
>
> On 1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
> > Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certain records,
> > e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally
> > happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
> > Do these records need to be public?
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147
> > >
>
> It's not clear to me whether all record-keeping needs to be public. It
> might be acceptable that records are kept and available on request if
> needed (e.g., in case of an appeal).
>
>
> I think that would be OK. But do they keep records at all?
I can't answer that. But I suspect that there might, rarely, be matters
that would be considered private, especially for the Independent Stream
if publishing a proprietary spec. So any policy for making the records
public would need to allow privacy exceptions.
However, I just glanced over the messages in my archive about AUTH48,
and I can't see any case that seems private. Even in a couple of cases
where advice was sought from the (former) RSAG, I don't see anything
sensitive.
One small point: if we add text stating that future records will be
public, or available on request, we'd better state that this is
not automatically retroactive for previous records.
Brian
From nobody Mon Jan 3 18:36:59 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B163F3A1492 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 18:36:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7fL7EUWlRufK for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 18:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 304EC3A1493 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 18:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id s6so33569632ioj.0 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 18:36:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bwHvmzp8my3D2MdKwFHEgbUD3ohPYCENe/ZMVGsgBu4=; b=WLB1hU1zOHC6ilNmkyeu4nlALCfbl83iYZOEJDWR+3c37Aet81ZhOgYo8mqvmG5YzT AQbdCsXUPJw48f9mkmizLUcf0FRis6beXR4Mwa3Z/Zsid1ZDYc0cN7IRrL2D6dUtUTwd UQmuwWnnz8uu8OGA95inQlAdr/z7+u3QLKw+Xcm7ylVPsau1p62/j7nnr2Sa5wVb/hEj Zm4qrVgUr56ZrT2/VvO2TSc+rAYzUXFN2HRFvyjD34RSAWcksrUp4btMN1SpZxuoo50A ujTcB0jnD0neQoO1elgdOsDdMuOe9gurkrXtDo2xLLQpz36y6UKQs5U3ScHFclgRkGqQ kR+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bwHvmzp8my3D2MdKwFHEgbUD3ohPYCENe/ZMVGsgBu4=; b=snsPgiBTkLy82BYoiHx6dWspA3VYoeOS3qcipWQrWUWGRlUBEl/e+cxj4tYpFafAB/ dL/Jl+JGnhSXvjffMO74eyZDNPwO0srywPsj4INKb0P+PW8NLSC+KjbeEiVQ04cZc6xp JQfcXAOIFDY76AcT1LKYo3T1ycJLk9H3LZjaUugMTURvO60LbIsbXHRy4I9Y2DFNOQGP cyfHlNcrAD3phlfQ2M+Y9DZ9ymQBbwO5K4eT5EFtjM5hLi4YAQ/+wwChsra3ClaFEGKS guDAELyagsGUDeD8jWiBon1Z6xbEj75fvGcTbqZaEwS87qAC8e4OxgMBv1kfUGEyI8KH FR5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531A2MJYWV+EZ2KkFrdVySeafdaa8EjWTlajMyRTu2qRZu+sZQBt tT9/953zgAPylT98hCoTnY8dYc/v2k4EdLUkXFPl/w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3hgWmb5MEu40ksVA3pI+gZqaYrEVKTlgbHobSh3QjDSwIXjwE1M55EYe9rro26bD+pZ8ezBtEPUPS77x2Fow=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3409:: with SMTP id n9mr22094082ioz.148.1641263811035; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 18:36:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <06414ab1-c53f-e542-52ff-800b99c23ef1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <06414ab1-c53f-e542-52ff-800b99c23ef1@gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 18:36:15 -0800
Message-ID:
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre , rfced-future@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000709aec05d4b88285"
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 147 [WGLC Review of the draft]
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 02:36:57 -0000
--000000000000709aec05d4b88285
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 5:26 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04-Jan-22 13:43, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> On one point only:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:39 PM Peter Saint-Andre > wrote:
> >
> > On 1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> ...
> > > Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certain records,
> > > e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally
> > > happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
> > > Do these records need to be public?
> > > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147 <
> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147>
> > > >
> >
> > It's not clear to me whether all record-keeping needs to be public.
> It
> > might be acceptable that records are kept and available on request if
> > needed (e.g., in case of an appeal).
> >
> >
> > I think that would be OK. But do they keep records at all?
>
>
> I can't answer that. But I suspect that there might, rarely, be matters
> that would be considered private, especially for the Independent Stream
> if publishing a proprietary spec. So any policy for making the records
> public would need to allow privacy exceptions.
>
Agreed. I don't actually have strong feelings about any of this and would
be fine if we struck this text. I'm just trying to review it from the
perspective
of "does this say what we want" and "can it be executed"?
> However, I just glanced over the messages in my archive about AUTH48,
> and I can't see any case that seems private. Even in a couple of cases
> where advice was sought from the (former) RSAG, I don't see anything
> sensitive.
>
> One small point: if we add text stating that future records will be
> public, or available on request, we'd better state that this is
> not automatically retroactive for previous records.
>
Agreed.
-Ekr
>
> Brian
>
--000000000000709aec05d4b88285
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=
On 04-Jan-22 13:43, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On one point only:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:39 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im <mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep cert=
ain records,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does=
that formally
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > happen now, or is it just in people's e-m=
ail folders?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Do these records need to be public?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > https:/=
/github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147 <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-f=
uture/issues/147>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <htt=
ps://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147 <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-r=
fced-future/issues/147>>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0It's not clear to me whether all record-keeping=
needs to be public. It
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0might be acceptable that records are kept and avail=
able on request if
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0needed (e.g., in case of an appeal).
>
>
> I think that would be OK. But do they keep records at all?
I can't answer that. But I suspect that there might, rarely, be matters=
that would be considered private, especially for the Independent Stream
if publishing a proprietary spec. So any policy for making the records
public would need to allow privacy exceptions.
Agreed. I don't actually have strong feelings about any of this=
and would
be fine if we struck this text. I'm just trying to=
review it from the perspective
of "does this say what we wa=
nt" and "can it be executed"?
=C2=
=A0
However, I just glanced over the messages in my archive about AUTH48,
and I can't see any case that seems private. Even in a couple of cases<=
br>
where advice was sought from the (former) RSAG, I don't see anything
sensitive.
One small point: if we add text stating that future records will be
public, or available on request, we'd better state that this is
not automatically retroactive for previous records.
Agreed.
-Ekr
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Brian
--000000000000709aec05d4b88285--
From nobody Tue Jan 4 00:58:07 2022
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFA33A1972 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 00:58:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lear.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q3ytt-ju2KNJ for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 00:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 111BA3A1971 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 00:57:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::3] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:3]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 2048voX72477484 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:57:51 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1641286672; bh=Cni/1NVydzJv1WIegNah+Gs+bj64TLPexY78bU2gwDo=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=lQvT3IccplEXIfCH2ltZOG7t3FECsHrIKONyHBLz2mgbn6rMx8CG0nzquRP+el59H iSHrrY+ACiShLWLHuswL8VhAvg53T7KBUtmMLp+TmG+GlaMVlbE+ylclHnUd8Tr2fD r8yHVVjXVcJ1M8uE7hc44tzegoiaRbDNbXWKbH3I=
Message-ID: <3983646a-f1bc-d094-0319-a32dd61e1bda@lear.ch>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:57:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Eric Rescorla , Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
References:
From: Eliot Lear
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------cpTe7kIMgBWLHMD1j80iWvva"
Archived-At:
Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 145 Re: WGLC Review of the draft
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 08:58:06 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--------------cpTe7kIMgBWLHMD1j80iWvva
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------G0vWNRnwjzjQRXKRdLzI0hjl";
protected-headers="v1"
From: Eliot Lear