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

Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco.com
Sat Nov 27 00:53:36 PST 2010

And any editor worth their salt would be wise to have such a committe. 
I have two, a public one: names printed on the back of the journal to
show the world how important my friends are :-) and: a "secret" one 
that gets to be blunt and tell me what I should or should not publish
(a paper review panel if you will).

In both cases I rely on a set of carefully selected individuals with
technical insight and other skills. I would hope the RSE could at 
least get to pick his/her advisors since we've already stripped him
of any content control. So, I do not think there needs to be two
committees and I am not in favor of having this be a nomcom 
appointment. Surely the community will be able to review the results
on an ongoing basis, no?


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> On 11/26/2010 4:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > As I said to Andrew, an advisory committee appointed by the RSE is the RSE's
> > business, but it can't claim any authority or community mandate.
> In fact, that's so informal, the RSE could go and create such a committee even
> without a reference to it in an enabling document (absent language prohibiting
> it).
> The only reason I see for even citing the RSAG, in this draft, is for
> historical continuity. (Yet its inclusion seems to be causing confusion.)
> d/
> -- 
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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