Re: [openpgp] Requesting the editor to step down

Michael Richardson <> Sun, 19 April 2020 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F19A3A0781 for <>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3b6ezyf3VAMC for <>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 397DB3A0780 for <>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4869338989; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:31:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F30431; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Paul Wouters <>, "openpgp\" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:33:35 -0400
Message-ID: <10155.1587335615@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Requesting the editor to step down
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:33:39 -0000

Paul Wouters <> wrote:
    Paul> On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Ronald Tse wrote:

    >> It is hardly Werner’s fault that consensus is difficult to come by in
    >> this group. Given that the OpenPGP Working Group has “already” been
    >> disbanded

    Paul> I'm also confused what that means for the bis draft. If there is no
    Paul> working group, then anyone can submit any kind of draft proposal as
    Paul> a bis document. But there is no WG, so I don't think the WG can
    Paul> decide to replace anyone on any draft?

You are certainly right: without a WG, whomever wants to edit a document can
do so.

    Paul> I'm not sure though a "bis" document could replace an existing
    Paul> standard without a WG behind it? It would seem odd for an AD
    Paul> sponsored document to replace a WG document ?

It would violate the rules for an ISE to replace an document that had IETF
An AD sponsored document does get IETF Consensus, so yes, it can "bis" a
now-disbanded WG document.  It is really the only way to do that other than
spinning up a WG, or perhaps, adopting the document somewhere else.

    Paul> As for the editing situation. It is possible that it would be
    Paul> beneficial for an editor to be added to the document for improved
    Paul> response time to various edits of the document. Maybe even someone
    Paul> less involved in openpgp so they can keep their role as much
    Paul> administrative as possible without technical bias?

I strongly agree: more authors produce better documents, up to some n^2
Mythical Man Month limitation.  Three people working together is ideal in my

I also think that we disband WGs *WAY TOO SOON*, and it's one of the major
reasons we don't have more Internet Standards.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-