[rfc-i] new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available

Dave CROCKER dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Tue Nov 23 13:01:48 PST 2010

On 11/23/2010 12:18 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> We have had some of those questions raised in the earlier on a narrow and
> broad scope of the position. This document clearly opts for a wide scope. I
> would be interested in a documentation of the motivation for that choice,
> specifically in the light of the exchange of views on this list earlier.


To raise a particular concern:  My reading of the exchange about this on the 
list, so far, is that it was assertions of preference, rather than discussion of 

Absent the latter, the is no public ability to analyze the choices.  We should 
be debating what the different choices enable or inhibit, rather than merely 
proclaiming what we like.

I'll again note that I think Andrew tried to engage us on such substance, but I 
didn't see the list taking the bait.  So, for example, Ted's support for the 
narrow scope includes justification such as "that role takes policy decisions or 
desiderata from the community and provides concrete methods for how to achieve 
them."  This makes all strategic decision making entirely amorphous and, 
therefore, unlikely.  The challenge for anyone proposing a choice is to deal 
concretely with the range of issues.  (Besides that, I don't think I've ever 
seen the community produce desiderata. Worse, I don't think I've ever seen a 
narrow-scope manager take something as generic as a desideratum and be able to 
design a solution that was acceptable. That kind of design work requires much, 
much more senior design skills that has been postulated for the narrow-scope 


(*) To the extent that someone believes the postings have covered more than 
this, I'd be extremely appreciative of a summary, since I failed so completely 
to discern those substantive points.

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list