[rfc-i] community member or not Re: [IAB] RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

Stephen Farrell stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Fri Aug 2 10:03:19 PDT 2019


On 02/08/2019 17:09, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> It may or may not be reflected more broadly throughout the community:  

IMO this is not a situation where only I* people differ
in opinion, nor one where all I* people are of one mind.

IOW, I feel pretty sure that there are diverse opinions
on the RSE role in the community when you omit those
currently doing some I* stuff. And that seems to be
reflected within the set of people currently on I* too.

As I think understand those arguments I reckon they
could maybe be roughly characterised as falling into
two buckets. Bucket#1 has arguments along the lines
that there now exist lots of ways to publish things
so the RFC series (and associated roles) no longer
need to be setup as they were 20 or 30 years ago.
Bucket#2 might be roughly described as those who
think there's an inherent value in the RFC series
and it's longevity and that changes to that need to
be done with extreme care and attention to the past
as well as the present and future.

Personally, I think there are valid arguments in
both buckets, but I'd find myself more in tune with
the arguments in bucket#2 I figure.

All that said, I am very unsure of the relative numbers
of IETF participants who basically don't care (a majority
I'd bet when it comes to any of this organisational stuff),
or who might be usefully described as fitting into buckets
#1 or #2.

And of course, I might also be plain wrong in how I
think about the arguments here.

> ISTM that the real question here is to figure that out, and get
> community consensus on which way we want to go, because there are
> significant consequences either way.

Yep. I agree with you there. It's not that clear how
one might determine (rough) consensus on some of these
issues though, until we get to e.g. a draft of 6635bis
that we can run through a normal enough process.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 10715 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190802/33e52069/attachment-0001.skr>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190802/33e52069/attachment-0001.asc>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list