Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:54:59 -0400

Sarah and everyone else,

It has been pointed out to me off list that I didn't mention the
process Heather is trying to convene to discuss general
directions.   I apologize; it is what happens when I try to cut
a message down to shorten it.

I think that is a great idea.  

But, in the context of my earlier note, what I'm worried about
is the community perception of the credibility of the steering
and decision processes.  In that context, I'd like to see
Heather (or a panel acting as a surrogate for Heather and her
predecessors) actually have the leadership responsibility and
authority for this, not just acting to convene interested people
for a discussion, something that, in principle, any IETF
participant could do.

I hope that is a bit more clear and, again, apologies for the
omission.

   john

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Sarah Banks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:14 -0700

Hi,
	I try to reply to emails in the order they came in, so sorry John, wasn't trying to beat you up with the "Heather is leading a call" thing. :) Thanks for following up. I still hold that you should join one of the calls and share that feedback. It's a useful path forward, and one that We should discuss.

Thanks
Sarah

> On Sep 13, 2019, at 8:54 AM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Sarah and everyone else,
>