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

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:42:52PM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, David Meyer wrote:
>> 
>> > 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)?
>> 
>> The original remark by (Pekka Savola?) implied that context, IMO:
>> 
>> > 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 :-)
>> 
>> Documents of a paralytic WG are usually half-baked. "Pushing through"
>> in this context implies "promoting to standard levels" to me.
>> 
>> If I misunderstood the context, I apologize. I hope my agreement with
>> Alex reaction that such a WG should be disbanded would still stand in
>> the "right" context, whatever that is.

	No worries. I think we're agreeing for the most part.

	Dave

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