Re: Status of this memo

[[e-mail]]

> > On Apr 27, 2021, at 7:14 PM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/27/21 7:12 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >
> >> Keith, I have to fundamentally disagree with you.
> >> Once the WG adopts the document, the WG owns it, and the document pen holder (original author or otherwise) is expected to work according to the direciton of the WG.
> >
> > That's not how I read BCP78, and I'm not aware of any other instrument by which the document's original authors give up their right to create derivative works.

> they do not give up that right , nor do any authors/editors of any ID or RFC

> >
> >> The pen holder retains their rights in their original contribution. But in fact, once it is incorporating text from the WG, it belongs to the WG.
> >
> > Emphatically disagree.  I believe this to be an entirely false statement.

> 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 (I was involved in a few of those cases when I was an AD) or the document can be
> abandoned and the WG move on to other work (also involved in at least one of these)

I recall a few cases like that. But IME the most common cause for editor
replacement is that the editor abandons the document. Usually because they don't
have the time. There have even been cases where they simply disappear.

Firing people is not one of the more pleasant parts of the job, that's for sure.

				Ned