[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model
sm at resistor.net
Sat Apr 18 16:07:10 PDT 2009
At 13:58 18-04-2009, Craig Partridge wrote:
>There's an additional risk under "lucky." One might find a senior
>person whose employer views it as useful to have the RSE on the employer's
>salary, and thus offers a person for the RSE role at a sharp discount.
That's one of the possible issues a future appointment model will have address.
>There are obvious dangers of capture (e.g. consider Cisco, Juniper
>and Huawei and suppose that one of them employed the RSE editor -- how
>would the other 2 feel? How would the IETF feel)?
The IETF community should take notice now instead of complaining
after the event. It's good that you brought the question up. My
opinion is that the choice should not be seen as giving the
appearance that a company has the upper hand on the RFC Editor
function. However, if that is the primary concern, we can end up
with mediocre choices.
More information about the rfc-interest