[rfc-i] On too many committees

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Tue Nov 30 10:23:25 PST 2010


>Replace Bob's question with:
>    "Suppose that the community developed a consensus to reorganize the RFC
>editor model."

Yeah.  I have to say I'm seeing a lot of what might tactlessly be
called paranoid micromanagement.  Just in case the RFC editor might
someday do something bad, we need elaborate structures to hamstring
him or her to do exactly what we want, even though we're not really
sure what we want.  This won't work for a variety of fairly obvious
reasons.

The RFC Editor has worked in the past because the people who did the
work were highly competent.  Does anyone really want to operate any
other way?  Set some general guidelines about what the RFC Ed does,
set a term and a lightweight appointment process, appoint someone, and
be done with it.  The main check on the RFC Ed is that you can appoint
someone else next term if the work isn't what you expected.

If the RFC Ed wants to consult informally with other people about
aspects of his or her job, that's fine, but it doesn't require a
formal structure.

R's,
John




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list