--On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 14:58 -0700 Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>...
> 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.
Randy,
We agree. But the key point, and the answer to Ben's question
about relationships to BCP 25/ RFC 2418, is in "should have
replaced them...". As long as an editor/author behaves as if
they are free to either ignore comments or say "no, I don't
agree with that or feel like making the change" _and_ WG Chairs
and/or ADs respond by doing nothing or effectively by saying
"Decent editors or hard to find" or equivalent, even "she was
the original author of the outline and text, so she has special
rights", then unless that person is a good interpreter of WG
consensus and decides to put it first, your comments and those
of RRC 2418 are meaningless in practice.
There is also a bit of a contradiction in RFC 2418, which is
that we normally say that WG Chairs are responsible for
interpreting WG consensus, but the description of the editor
role says that, for a specific document, that job belongs to the
editor.
If we want the system to work as several of us have claimed it
should work, there has got to be a lot more willingness to fire
and replace editors who don't take on the role you describe. If
a replacement cannot be found and that leaves the document
without an editor, then the WG doesn't care enough about the
document and the work it represents to move it forward,
consensus or no consensus.
john
