Re: Status of this memo

Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu> Tue, 27 April 2021 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E591C3A223F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gG7K4nUPMq2P for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-f45.google.com (mail-pj1-f45.google.com [209.85.216.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EB173A223E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-f45.google.com with SMTP id u14-20020a17090a1f0eb029014e38011b09so7986238pja.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VBxjtkKN7jl8cuB+HNFUOrLAqVUkHnIxGZ+8T/esU2Q=; b=X/Gb7dsehANFP0b5LNlQOm5cXSrCJKwYg1D7cuGVFS6at59zTKhleMxN6f/ZwuVHFR dpklh3ZWvAw3aGpKupSDiDzRHVjqS+vvmeKdCeojgxT0YaVnJAPdfhLtnU+Pj1cD86gm 4XVSHxNLUhT20f8jxp1vOu4gg7MG/XA/W7zRAC4s3E9EeLPRfZI3XWEcsmzkAHWC1ZCI 2PhSiAw+cOhkKmxRQ82m9o1fulqvuOCNJos7TYNIQwOa1RpArVmMd7fzL9WTy92LDDee Zx58tO87+2mnTBfQMsMxz/AolDei4lzhqZ56K8tQAVFdY4Nl2Tdmp5aGLwm2pK9QijZ4 VTMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533HfAgyremD3WnOWYgB3/woMVP1LJUHskqVTEXvxGxL1OAH8xeP Aw/+Kr/omh+tnRC8YE0G0bkNc7qJFSRUOA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGNLhc86eVX6WItjh9OjC/zlp1dR6Zz0by45zLgIxXrmhyDGU/DnoiBUwUASP5sSJOrZzpOw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9347:b029:e8:c21c:f951 with SMTP id g7-20020a1709029347b02900e8c21cf951mr26552727plp.14.1619560706379; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:9300:791:de7:9306:f150:1b69? ([2601:646:9300:791:de7:9306:f150:1b69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l18sm2896013pjq.33.2021.04.27.14.58.25 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com> <2c48c55c-fd37-6ced-e025-707eb145a27b@nokia.com> <CAA=duU1zuZ0ae_fK9vQkkRxFffgitLpATxwNcpfeftepBpY4=w@mail.gmail.com> <0554cec1-71e7-72fd-1f4d-ca9977943425@comcast.net>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <aa64969f-0a8d-dd43-1ed9-91c48e48f92f@alumni.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:58:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0554cec1-71e7-72fd-1f4d-ca9977943425@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/H9l6wh8qHi26z9k5X6Wb90XTqjc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 21:58:31 -0000

Hi -

On 2021-04-27 1:14 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
> In my experience, the WG does NOT gain control of the document (and I 
> have several worked examples in the DNSOP WG).

In such a case, where the document editor (who may or may not have been
an author of some earlier version of the content) has failed in their
job, and the WG chair(s) should have replaced them with someone willing
and able to do the job.

>  In some cases, if it 
> did, I might be more successful at getting fixes adopted against the 
> author's will,

This discussion seems to confuse author and editor.  In my experience,
once something is "adopted" by a WG, the person "holding the pen" is
supposed to function as an editor, even though they may have authored
much of the contribution serving as the starting point for discussion.

> but I think making the WG directly in control of the 
> content of a given document prior to the WG submitting it for 
> publication is generally a bad idea.
...

This makes no sense at all to me.  It effectively says that WG last call
is the only opportunity for the WG to affect the content.  To me that
seems to completely undermine the collaborative nature of the work.
Once something has been adopted by a WG, the WG is in charge. Its
instructions to the editor might be as broad as "reorganize the contents
in line with our recent discussion" or as narrow as "change 'behavior to
behaviour' in section 2.3."  If the editor is doing their job, the i-d
will reflect the WG's (evolving) thinking, hopefully converging at WG
last call.

Randy