[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.)

Yours,
Joel

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
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list