[rfc-i] Candidates for RSOC sought

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Fri Feb 25 06:32:40 PST 2011

In a formal sense, I agree with Dave Crocker about what ould be 
cleanest.  And in some other community, we might be able to do that.
Given the tremendous breadth of skill and participation in this topic we 
have (NOT) I do not think we can afford to exclude the RSOC members as 
individuals from the policy discussions.

The one thing that seems important to me, in order to preserve teh RSOC 
oversight role, is to note that the RSOC as a body should not be taking 
a position in policy discussions.  It is very hard to oversee a policy 
decision process for which you as a body have already formed a clear 
conclusion on the answer.


On 2/25/2011 9:24 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:37:52AM -0500, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> In particular,
>> So I'll suggest a broader rules:
>>       An RSOC member must recuse themselves from RSOC review and approval
>> of any issue about which they have been active.
> I think this rule deeply wrong.  Taken quite literally, it means that
> every RSOC member will be by definition unqualified to evaluate
> anything that comes before them.
> A

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list