[rfc-i] new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available

Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco.com
Sat Nov 27 00:53:36 PST 2010


And any editor worth their salt would be wise to have such a committe. 
I have two, a public one: names printed on the back of the journal to
show the world how important my friends are :-) and: a "secret" one 
that gets to be blunt and tell me what I should or should not publish
(a paper review panel if you will).

In both cases I rely on a set of carefully selected individuals with
technical insight and other skills. I would hope the RSE could at 
least get to pick his/her advisors since we've already stripped him
of any content control. So, I do not think there needs to be two
committees and I am not in favor of having this be a nomcom 
appointment. Surely the community will be able to review the results
on an ongoing basis, no?

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> 
> On 11/26/2010 4:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > As I said to Andrew, an advisory committee appointed by the RSE is the RSE's
> > business, but it can't claim any authority or community mandate.
> 
> 
> In fact, that's so informal, the RSE could go and create such a committee even
> without a reference to it in an enabling document (absent language prohibiting
> it).
> 
> The only reason I see for even citing the RSAG, in this draft, is for
> historical continuity. (Yet its inclusion seems to be causing confusion.)
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list