[rfc-i] "Executive-level management": What is the purpose of the RSE?

[Dave CROCKER]

Andrew,

Two quickies...


On 1/10/2011 1:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> This logic seems to be in line with the "fire everyone who works for the
>> government and is not at their job between Christmas and New Years"
>> model.
>
> Since you have repeatedly taken to task people who can't stick to the
> point or who are setting up straw versions of others' arguments, I
> invite you to contemplate quantity of glass on your own house.]

Always a reasonable, generic concern, but I have no idea what particular(s) 
motivated the concern in this case. (Your implication is serious and I'd like to 
take it seriously, but cannot do that without the substance.)


>> Only if one ignores what has not been getting done or has not been
>> getting done well.
>
> That is simply a false dichotomy.  At the moment, _nobody_ really has
> a handle on this.

Glenn has listed things that need doing that are not getting done.

In addition as I understand it there is a sub-rosa management team comprising 
IAOC Chair, IETF Chair and I guess the Production Center manager.  Maybe some 
others.  I believe the nature of their RFC Editor work has not been discussed on 
the list, nor the arguments for continuing it.

The bottom line appears to be that, for some time, most things that could be 
considered 'strategic' for the RFC Editor have largely ignored.  So, the core 
task of "editing" has been refined quite well, but the larger enhancing the RFC 
Editor as a global community service has not.

      And to the extent that my impression is wrong, it would be
      extremely helpful for those who hold this contrary view to
      provide particulars.

The effort to get a restricted, lower-level RSE will either take a junior person 
and demand they do senior work, or offload the senior work onto a committee, 
where on-going committees are not very good at strategic initiatives.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net