[rfc-i] RSOC oversight role

Ted Hardie ted.ietf at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 12:44:54 PST 2011

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> Again:  If we are in such dire straights that an RSOC must be involved in
> the details of the work, we have much bigger resource problems.

But that's not the issue.  Glenn's text doesn't say that it should be
structured so that they don't have to be, it says that the members must
not be.  Having RSOC members who care about the policy issues is a good
thing. If they aren't involved during the process, there is a real
risk that they
will feel the need to raise flags at the very end, when everyone else thinks
things are done.  That results in exhaustion and paralysis.

We muddle through  people taking hats on and off
everywhere in the IETF, and I think we know how.  I'd much rather
have that a "late surprise" by someone so committed to the issues
that they spent their time on the RSOC but who was muzzled from
speaking early on.



 For one
> things, it is a demonstration of an inability to delegate.
> The rule should be simple and straightforward to say, think about and apply.
> This is not a topic that needs anything careful and precise because its
> application won't support it.
> 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