Re: [openpgp] Requesting the editor to step down

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> 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
Consensus.
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.
(SAAG?..)

    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
opinion.

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 <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-