On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 06:09:31PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > On 4/27/21 5:54 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > >> emphatically disagree, and I believe that's a particularly harmful > >> concept to promote. > > Could you elaborate more on how your position relates to the BCP 25 > > description of "Document Editor"? §6.3 of RFC 2418 has: > > > > Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of > > documents, that capture the results of the group's work. A working > > group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor > > for a particular document. The Document Editor is responsible for > > ensuring that the contents of the document accurately reflect the > > decisions that have been made by the working group. > > In my experience WGs have often accepted the original > author(s)/editor(s) of a document as the Document Editor, and done so > without much (if any) formality. I think it mostly works > > I'm not sure what this has to do, however, with the bit of the reply > that you quoted. My understanding is that you are objecting to statements that "a WG draft is one where the WG has taken over change control". I see your comments elsewhere that the author/editor should have freedom to make drastic changes, especially in earlier revisions, to attempt to improve the document. I think I agree with you in the sense that requiring pre-approval to all changes to the text of a WG document hinders progress, but I also think that if there is a conflict between what the editor wants to do and what the WG wants to do, the editor must yield to the WG (or be replaced). In this sense I would say that the WG has change control, since the WG consensus prevails. I would like to understand how you are understanding the concept of "change control" such that you do not want to say that "the WG has change control over a WG document", especially in light of the BCP statement that the document editor has to reflect the WG's decisions. Does that clarify what I'm trying to ask for? Thanks, Ben
