Re: [Solutions] Re: [mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James Kempf wrote:
> 
>>Could you explain a little more? What exactly do you mean by the chair being
>>a "developer"? If you read Margaret's draft (which I presume you did, since
>>you're commenting on this thread) then you know that she has proposed that
>>chairs are no longer allowed to be authors or editors of drafts, except for
>>a limited period during which they are in transition between one role and
>>another. So, if that's what you mean by being a "developer", that particular
>>concern would be covered if that part of Margaret's draft is instituted. 
> 
> 
> This is not what the draft says.  WG chairs can be authors and editors 
> as well, *as long as* they do not serve in the same role for the 
> particular document at the same time.  I.e., if there are two chairs, 
> one can author/edit a document without problems still.
> 

My interpretation was the same as yours, which is why I voiced 
unequivocally, and undiplomatically my concerns. So in fact Margaret's 
draft does not suggest changing the current practice, as James's 
interperation suggested. That current practice is a problem even in 
current conditions, without any additional power to the chairs.

> Removing that possibility might be interesting, but would the WG get 
> anything done then? :-)  WG chairs are often the last resort of 
> pushing through the documents when WG falls into paralysis :-)
> 
> 

If the WG chairs being the last resort should not be a concern, it means 
no one is interested in the work of that WG, so the WG should be 
disbanded, and the work filed as it is - incomplete work, could be 
resumed later, if interest revives.

Alex