Hi - On 2021-04-27 1:14 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: ...
In my experience, the WG does NOT gain control of the document (and I have several worked examples in the DNSOP WG).
In such a case, where the document editor (who may or may not have been an author of some earlier version of the content) has failed in their job, and the WG chair(s) should have replaced them with someone willing and able to do the job.
In some cases, if it did, I might be more successful at getting fixes adopted against the author's will,
This discussion seems to confuse author and editor. In my experience, once something is "adopted" by a WG, the person "holding the pen" is supposed to function as an editor, even though they may have authored much of the contribution serving as the starting point for discussion.
but I think making the WG directly in control of the content of a given document prior to the WG submitting it for publication is generally a bad idea.
... This makes no sense at all to me. It effectively says that WG last call is the only opportunity for the WG to affect the content. To me that seems to completely undermine the collaborative nature of the work. Once something has been adopted by a WG, the WG is in charge. Its instructions to the editor might be as broad as "reorganize the contents in line with our recent discussion" or as narrow as "change 'behavior to behaviour' in section 2.3." If the editor is doing their job, the i-d will reflect the WG's (evolving) thinking, hopefully converging at WG last call. Randy
