[rfc-i] new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available
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 J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
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
> 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.)
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest