Re: [Pesci-discuss] Fw: (from Techspec) Non-Author Editing

Sam sed:
> I don't think this is true.  I think an IETF consensus can and should
> be able to change the text of a WG draft over a WG objection.

in theory this sounds like a Good Thing because I think it would result in
the best technology & standards but  moving from theory and real process 
could be tricky. 

The assumption in RFC 2026 etc is that the results of the IETF last call 
and/or IESG review go back to the WG for the WG to decide what to do 
(i.e. the pen is not given over to someone else w/o the WG buyin - for
example to th RFC Editor notes the IESG can add to Protocol Action
notices) 

Having a process to tell the WG that it MUST make a particular change is 
not currently in the process but that does not mean that it can not be done.
(some people have complained that this happens already when an IESG
member makes it clear that a DISCUSS will not be cleared until a 
particulkar change is made in a document)

I do not think that the IESG "can and should be able to change the text of a 
WG draft over a WG objection" so the process of determining "IETF consensus" 
for requiring a change over the WG's "better judgement" needs some
thinking out so as to not have the IESG be tempted to take on that
role

Scott

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss