Re: [Eligibility-discuss] RFC criterion [was ISE vs IETF Stream RFCs for Path 3]

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 09:10 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> <NOHATS>
> 
> John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > --On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 20:51 -0400 Michael
> Richardson     > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     >> ...  I note that we don't have a lot of comments about
> Path 2!  ADs     >> could pad the list by appointing lots of
> secretaries.  Why aren't we     >> worried about that?
> 
>     > Because a few would not make much difference, most of
> them would (again     > and as you have pointed out) be picked
> up by other criteria, and, if a     > particular AD started
> appointing lots of secretaries who were not doing     > that
> job or participating in other ways, I assume the community
> would     > hold it against them, possibly to the point of
> starting recall     > proceedings but certainly at the "tell
> it to the Nomcom" level :-).
> 
> Do the the same considerations apply to WG chairs that add a
> lot contributors to documents?

I would think so.  Remembering that WG Chairs rarely change the
documents themselves and that, if one were to do so, the
author(s) would be notified at posting time, I'd expect any
author who was victimized in that way (i.e., not fully
complicit) to immediately complain to the WG and/or initiate a
formal appeal of the action.  Unless there were special
circumstances they were prepared to explain to the rest of the
IESG and/or the community, I would also expect the responsible
AD to either rapidly engage in some reeducation for the relevant
WG Chair or fire them.

So, again, I'm having trouble seeing a problem in this area that
is worth the energy that has gone into it already.

>...

best,
  john