[rfc-i] "Executive-level management": What is the purpose of the RSE?
dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Jan 10 15:16:27 PST 2011
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"
> 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
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.
More information about the rfc-interest