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

Sam sez:
> However if the outcome of an IETf last call is that "foo
> must become bar," then that document's not moving until foo becomes
> bar.  If the WG doesn't like it, well, we can probably find someone to
> take the same text and submit it as an individual submission.

that prcess id not called out in 2026 but then again 2026 specifically 
did not try to call out every possibility

2026 wants to see a WG recommendation to kick off a review process
	i.e. WG consensus

2026 then says that the IESG does a last call and after the last call
   In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the
   IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve
   the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
   electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.

2026 paints a picture a binary choice for the IESG - yes or no to publication

the IESG has been operating in a work-it-out-with-the-WG-or-the-editor
mode for quite a while - not in a ignore-WG-consensus mode

but lets look at the situation Sam postulates

WG has consensus for foo 

there is a clear (and for the sake of discussion widespread)
IETF last call consensus that foo->bar

changing the document editor would not change the WG consensus - it
would be seen as bypassing the IETF WG process

(note that document editors do get changed from time to time - sometimes over
their objections - as AD I was part of doing that more than once - but
that was because the editor was seen as not following WG consensus so
swapping an editor because he or she was following WG consensus weems
a bit funny

to me the correct process would be to kick the document back to the WG,
tell the folk who commented in the Last Call to join the wg list
and tell the WG to take a fresh look at the issue.

I do not see that the IESG has the authority to override a WG consensus
other than to say "no" to a publish request - I do not see that the
IESG has the authority to edit a document brought before it (by 
RFC Editor note or by ordering in a new document editor) without
the WG buy-in (note that doing just that was one of the things that
got the IAB reassigned)

Scott

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