Re: Status of this memo

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/27/21 7:25 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:

> maybe the issue is with the word "belongs" - once the WG adopts an ID, as has been previously noted,
> the original author or editor is required to reflect the WG consensus - if the original author or editor
> refuses to do so he or she can be "fired" and someone else appointed to take over editing the
> document

Maybe the issue is with the wording "the document" implying that there's 
only one document, when reality is more like a tree-structured series of 
derivative works.   If "the" means the specific branch of a revision 
tree that the WG intends to collaborate on and perhaps eventually 
publish, I agree with you. But there are other documents that "the" 
could refer to, so I suspect it's better to avoid that ambiguity.

> the original editor/author can ask that the ID be published in the independent stream (also
> involved in a few of those) or take it to another SDO or punish it as a novel (I was not involved in
> any of these) or forget the whole thing

Presumably the original editor/author could at some later point ask the 
WG to consider adopting the editor/author's current version of the 
work.   I'm not saying it's likely that the WG would accept (since they 
had already lost faith in the original author).  But I've certainly seen 
cases in which there was a bitter disagreement between two parties, in 
which party B initially won favor, only for most people to later admit 
that party A was right.    Anyway I'm not aware of anything in our 
process that would prohibit that.

Keith