Re: Status of this memo

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/28/21 12:13 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> AFAICT, basically everyone other than you in the thread is using "the WG
> has change control" to mean "for the document that the WG is going to
> collaborate on [and intends to eventually submit for an IETF Last Call],
> the WG decides what goes in that document".  That is generally going to be
> "the document named draft-ietf-wgname-foo" (though not always, of course),
> and I thought that the definite article was implied by the process of WG
> adoption.
>
> In particular, if we avoid using the phrase "change control" as shorthand
> for anything, I'm seeing very little actual disagreement in this thread.
> I see a lot of people saying that for the document (or documents) the WG
> intends to do things with, the WG calls the shots, and the editor of the WG
> document has some flexibility about how to do that given the nature of the
> direction from the WG.  I see approximately nobody saying that once the WG
> has adopted a document, the author of the original document cannot continue
> to do what they like with the original document('s contents).
>
> Am I missing something?

I think that's about right, and I think the discussion is/was converging 
on that view.

Keith