On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 07:10:56PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> Anyway I think it's probably better to not think of "change control" as
> if nobody else but the WG has the right to edit the original document
> (which is clearly not the case), but instead to think in terms of which
> document the WG is going to collaborate on and which it intends to
> eventually submit for an IETF Last Call. And the WG is free to change
> its mind about that.
AFAICT, basically everyone other than you in the thread is using "the WG
has change control" to mean "for the document that the WG is going to
collaborate on [and intends to eventually submit for an IETF Last Call],
the WG decides what goes in that document". That is generally going to be
"the document named draft-ietf-wgname-foo" (though not always, of course),
and I thought that the definite article was implied by the process of WG
adoption.
In particular, if we avoid using the phrase "change control" as shorthand
for anything, I'm seeing very little actual disagreement in this thread.
I see a lot of people saying that for the document (or documents) the WG
intends to do things with, the WG calls the shots, and the editor of the WG
document has some flexibility about how to do that given the nature of the
direction from the WG. I see approximately nobody saying that once the WG
has adopted a document, the author of the original document cannot continue
to do what they like with the original document('s contents).
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Ben
