[mpowr] WGs or WG chairs

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

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Pete Resnick wrote:

> #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.

My understanding is that WG cannot stop a document if IESG wants to
publish it. WG does not have the power to stop IESG from making a
change and then publishing a document with that change. However, you
are probably thinking of pre-IESG decisions here.

> 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.

OK.

My point is that we should not start every discussion with "let's give
WG Chair power to do X". We should start every discussion with "let's
give WG power to do X" and only after there is consensus about that we
should discuss how WG can use/express that power (via Chairs, authors,
appointed representatives, automated means, etc.).

Alex.

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