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

And above all, if this were a principle to be listed,
it is NOT a principle for "the process change process" I think.
I.e. we are (or so I think) outside the scope of the chartered
pesci activity.

Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 07:38
> To: Spencer Dawkins
> Cc: PESCI Discuss Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Pesci-discuss] Fw: (from Techspec) Non-Author Editing
> 
> 
> >>>>> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org> writes:
> 
>     Spencer> I'm thinking there's an IETF principle behind Brian's "as
>     Spencer> long as" caveat that looks something like
> 
>     Spencer> Working groups are responsible for the text of
>     Spencer> specifications they develop from the point of adoption as
>     Spencer> a working group draft until publication. The working
>     Spencer> group controls all changes to the text of a working group
>     Spencer> draft.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pesci-discuss mailing list
> Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
> 

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