[rfc-i] Comparatively minor questions on the motivations

Dave Thaler dthaler at microsoft.com
Tue Dec 21 12:52:43 PST 2010

I just finished reading the motivations document, and have some additional
clarifying questions, which are minor compared to the questions Olaf and Ted

1) A half-time appointment would presumably lead to the RSE having something
    else for the other half-time.  However, Section 2 states "This person must 
   have no other interests."   Can you clarify to reconcile these two statements?

2) I still find it confusing as to what "consent" of the REOC really means in 
    practice, in this proposed model.   What happens if they don't consent, or
    if they have no consensus on whether they consent?  (This is actually more
   a comment on the model than on the motivations, but the motivations 
   discusses it and doesn't answer it for me.)

3) I found Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.5 (and to some extend 3.2.1) to be confusing,
   arguably contradictory, with respect to whose job it would be, in your 
   recommendations, to lead various review meetings.

BTW, I found the motivations draft far more clear than the model draft
on what your recommendation is for the RSAG.   This at least answered
my confusion on that point.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list