Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWRWG proposal

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Margaret,

> Some of this may be a terminology issue...
>
> Do you think that a WG chair should be allowed to hold a document
> (i.e. not submit it to the IESG) while the chair seeks sufficient
> cross-area review?  Or do you think that a chair is obligated to
> send a document to the IESG as soon as the WG has consensus to
> do so, even if, it is the opinion of the chair that the document
> requires more cross-area review before it is ready to advance?
>
> If we give the chair responsibility for obtaining sufficient
> cross-area review, then we also have to give him the authority
> to hold the document (even one that has WG consensus) until the
> cross-area review is completed, don't you think?
>

I think we may be getting to the nub of the objection here.

As near as I can understand from talking with some people who have been
vocal in their objections, one of the primary problems they have with your
draft is the implication that giving the WG chair the authority to say no
essentially mixes development and quality control. From experience with
software development, quality control works best when the development team
and the QA team are separate, as developers often have difficulty seeing
quality problems.

But, from your statement above, it seems you have something different in
mind. By "authority" you rather mean just official RFC 2026-level approval
for the WG chair to manage the review of the document, because a WG chair
can't do that today. Not that the WG chair would, in essence, have a
line-item veto whereby they could go through a document and change things
arbitrarily.

Do I understand you correctly?

            jak


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