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

[Alex Rousskov <[e-mail]>]

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.

Alex.

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