[rfc-i] RSE Position Description
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Mon Jul 11 10:59:23 PDT 2011
On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Over and over, the term "executive management" has lead to confusion. I suggest that you drop it from the description of the RSE. I suggest that "executive management" be replaced with the activities that will be performed.
The reason why that is not a full +1 (or even +10 [*]) is that the term exec management does try to communicate a certain level of autonomy, authority, and responsibility that IMHO cannot just be explained in terms of activities.
It is that 'intangible' bit of the meaning that leads to the confusion, possibly because various combinations of folk involved in the discussions have a slightly different idea, not about what the words mean, but about the level of autonomy, authority, and responsibility that we want to allow the RSE to have.
I realize that using the term executive management, or not, will not solve that. Nor do I think we will be able to find the words that we will all consent on. That worries me because I am still a bit afraid it will come back to bite us. On the other hand I realize that that worry is not shared by many.
In other words, removing the words will help us to rat-hole less on the wording, but if we have a problem then removing the wording doesn't solve the problem.
[*] I sometimes wonders what the unit for expressing the agreement quantity is. But I think it is either mass or velocity, or the product thereof. +10 seems to have a higher impact than +1. Maybe it is a unit not coupled to a specific quantity (like the bel) Maybe a subject for a detailed definition in a month or 10 from now.
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
More information about the rfc-interest