Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Further Work on WG (chair) Roles -- MPOWR WG Proposal

On 1/9/04 at 1:34 PM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
>>  This discussion can be loosely categorized into three separate
>>  sub-discussions:
>>
>>      (1) Should we form a WG to move some responsibility
>>          and authority from the IESG to WGs or WG chairs?
>>      (2) Does it make sense to give WG chairs more document
>>          shepherding responsibility, and if so what is the
>>          best way to do that?
>>      (3) Should WG chairs have the authority to block
>>          documents due to low technical quality,
>>          insufficient review, etc.?
>
>It would be nice if you could replace "WG chairs" with "WG" in all of
>the above items when categorizing. There was no consensus whether WG
>Chair should be the object of these changes or the WG as a whole.
>Let's stick with a more general case (WG as a whole) for now and
>decide on Chair/author/participant role at the next level of detail.
>This approach will prevent people like me from objecting to your
>categorization itself as a starting point.

#1 already talks about "WGs or WG chairs", so it seems you're only 
talking about #2 and #3. Replacing "WG chairs" with WG in #3 makes no 
sense: Of course a WG can stop a document in the current procedures. 
So (unless I'm mistaken), you only care about changing the words in 
#2. Correct? If so, let's drop this discussion here and talk about it 
in the summary of shepherding. Otherwise, please explain.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr