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

[David Meyer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:31:31PM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

	Who said anything about half-baked documents without
	authors or promoting to standards level (other than you)?
	
>> 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. 

	I said nothing of the sort.

>> This implies that a frozen (usually at a near-PS level) output is worth
>> saving for reasons other than historical.

	Maybe it does, but that has nothing to do with what I was
	saying.

	Dave

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