Re: [openpgp] Requesting the editor to step down

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 19 April 2020 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903B63A03F1 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e7m_RLfM191X for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DA023A03ED for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4953pn5qWfzFJZ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:07:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1587334049; bh=TWoPY1PdA07bISuP0+aP9CIWnX4td1CF+HFoa6OgFaM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=SwSb3kNgel5l8Oc1YAOoVeSE0Mgovm5D2JeS5lgE9CZt7kRBVWqgXCMtTEiMcUQlr oEwKySiKQ3emKpbChOqgWai3uMDKikj72i6S4CIt4ADh650u7mAYK/W9gDFlNz83XQ qmScK1SlVKGdCuOHjWTiLNE8dKQ4A+t7J3U+Ghfw=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8J6BOCE1g_Gs; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:07:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:07:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 09C39602980B; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0650E6FD76; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Ronald Tse <tse=40ribose.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <B74328A2-2CC0-4D0A-8C07-E9D52DCC46B3@ribose.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2004191804000.8909@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <3J6ZOTPGPXG6Y.2JRNW7TO2C5HZ@my.amazin.horse> <B74328A2-2CC0-4D0A-8C07-E9D52DCC46B3@ribose.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/HnBZAcdePT6MimeQRTRPHARiM6E>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Requesting the editor to step down
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:07:34 -0000

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

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

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

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

Paul