Re: Status of this memo

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

What I am describing is what I have seen practice by MANY working groups 
across many areas.

The working groups clearly have the rights to do what is described.

While it is true that replacing an author can be difficult, I have seen 
it done many times.  It shouldn't need to be done as often as it is.

I would personally prefer to avoid codifying the IETF practice of WG 
adoption and renaming into rigid rules.   They tend to cause as many 
problems as they solve.

It is true that not all WGs adopt documents, and that not all documents 
get their name changed.  There was, for example, one SFC document that 
was sufficiently simple that when the WG adopted it the chairs did not 
ask for a name change.  And then shortly thereafter went to WG last call 
on the document.  The lack of name change actually confused quite a 
number of people.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/27/2021 7:43 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 4/27/2021 7:12 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Hi Joel -
> 
> I'm lacking a reference for that specific claim in the various documents 
> that describe the process of getting a document published as an RFC. 
> Could you provide one please?  E.g. where does it say that the WG owns 
> it?   For that matter, where does it say that a WG needs to formally 
> adopt a document to work on it?
> 
> I would say instead that the WG may - when faced with a recalcitrant 
> author/editor  a) replace them, b) decline to advance the document.  In 
> my experience (a) has been difficult to achieve simply because you may 
> not be able to find anyone else who cares enough to do the grunt work of 
> taking the slings and arrows of the WG and turning it into a publishable 
> document.  So the person who holds the pen, also tends to have a bit 
> more say over the content of the document - that's just the reality of 
> things.
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
>