[rfc-i] Role of the Editorial Board

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Mon Sep 22 12:42:27 PDT 2008

On Sep 22, 2008, at 8:34 PM, Bob Braden wrote:

> At 01:53 PM 9/21/2008, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Olaf:
>> I agree that two boards, each serving a particular need, is better
>> than one board with two masters.
>> Russ
> Russ,
> Personal opinion: terrible idea.  The board has NO masters, it might
> only serve two functions.

The word 'master' was my choice of words. Not the best if taken  
literarily, and suggesting conflict of interest where there is none.

Moving beyond that choice of wording.

What I got out of Brian's message is that the two boards may have such  
distinct knowledge, experience, and expertise that in time they may  
grow to have little overlap.

I think it is fairly unrealistic to expect two boards with little  
overlap to be created at the moment we start implementing the model.  
In fact that would be a terrible idea. But allowing them to evolve  
separately and focus on their own expertise seems like a opportunity  
more than a thread.

That said, I am interested in the other arguments you may have why two  
boards _is_ a terrible idea.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20080922/64a04d8a/PGP.bin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list