[rfc-i] "Executive-level management": What is the purpose of the RSE?
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 17:53:34 PST 2011
On 2011-01-11 12:16, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 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"
>> 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.
I suspect the proposed oversight committee will make this redundant,
especially if the oversight committee feels a direct resposibility
to the community.
> 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.
Exactly. And we don't want either a robot or management by committee.
An autonomous Senior Person and an oversight committee seems a much
more effective way forward to me.
More information about the rfc-interest