[rfc-i] RSOC name

Sarah Banks sbanks at encrypted.net
Sun Aug 18 20:04:26 PDT 2019


Hi,
	Joel was on the original search team, and the subsequent second team. Of course he was consulted. Joel was a very active member of the RSOC :) I feel I am missing something here. I'll ask again - what is the specific question being asked here? I'm not sure I fully understand, outside of the extremely broad question last posed below, and that's difficult to respond to.

Thanks
Sarah


> On Aug 18, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com> wrote:
> 
> I am afraid I do not remember who was on the original search committee any
> more, but if I understand correctly the following statements are true:
> 
> 1.  Joel would be the only person who was on the original search committee
> and the RSOC at the time of the last bidding process.
> 2.  There are now three people who are on the committee at the time of the
> last bidding process who are still on RSOC and that does not include Joel.
> 
> Given that part of the question that was raised on the list was the issue of
> how many people were bidding, am I correct in assuming that Joel was
> consulted to get some answers to that question at some point given that he
> is the only person to have gone through this process twice?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of Sarah
> Banks
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 3:31 PM
> To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf at elandsys.com>
> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RSOC name
> 
> Hi,
> 	I believe there was access to institutional memory, in that we had
> Joel on the RSOC the last time we went through this process. Remember, the
> last time we went through the process, we already had an incumbent. If you
> have further questions regarding RSOC membership, I encourage you to explore
> those with the IAB, who appoints the RSOC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sarah
> 
> 
>> On Aug 18, 2019, at 12:10 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf at elandsys.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Sarah,
>> At 10:30 AM 18-08-2019, Sarah Banks wrote:
>>>       Unfortunately, that's a very broad request. If you can help me
> understand what you're trying to understand and narrow the focus, that would
> be helpful.
>> 
>> I was trying to understand whether the institutional memory was preserved
> and, if that was the case, to access some of it.  I explained that a few
> times but my request did not get through probably because of communication
> difficulties.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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