[rfc-i] The "executive management" conundrum
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Jul 19 10:13:24 PDT 2011
There are several reasons for differences. The two I know of are:
1) They are aimed at different audiences. the job description is
intended to go out much more broadly than the IETF.
2) The RSOC requested, and was given permission, to replace the term
"executive management" in their posted summary. The IAB has not yet
made a final decision on that issue for 5620bis. If folks have opinions
on that, they should say so. (And quite a few folks have done so, which
has been helpful.)
On 7/19/2011 12:54 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> On 7/19/2011 8:59 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> Ah! Thanks. I thought Dave was referring to a separate document, given that
>>> the profile you refer to is mostly a rewrite of section 2.1.6 of the draft.
>> It is actually useful to hear that an independent set of eyes assesses it as a straightforward derivation, since an inherent concern with such a separate document is that it might be seen as diverging from the underlying material.
> I did not say "a straightforward derivation": I said "a rewrite". It does diverge (and sounds like it will diverge more) in a confusing fashion.
> Simple questions: Why are the two different? Will they be made the same soon?
> --Paul Hoffman
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest