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

[Alex Rousskov <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, David Meyer wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> In the former case (WG chairs as last resort), there are just too
> many issues surrounding how authors work in a volunteer organization
> to make such a (categorical) statement.

Nothing in the volunteer nature of an organization implies that
half-baked documents without authors are worth promoting to standard
levels by heroic chair actions.

If we assume that WG documents must be maintained _after_ the IESG
marks them as "proposed standard", then what Alex is saying is not
that categorical. You are saying that a WG chair can be used as a last
resort to save good output of a now-defunct working group. This
implies that a frozen (usually at a near-PS level) output is worth
saving for reasons other than historical.

To me, this is equivalent of releasing beta-quality software without
any support or real possibility of upgrades. This should not be done.
It is far better not to release such software at all and simply
archive it.

Alex.

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr