--On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 21:13 -0700 Benjamin Kaduk
<kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
AFAICT, little or nothing. I do think there is another
sub-issue that has confused the conversation. If the WG, in
calling the shots, feels a need to micromanage a document editor
(whomever that might be) and, in particular, gets to the point
of needing consensus calls on editorial --rather than
substantive technical-- issues to move forward, then the WG has
a problem. I don't think we can make rules about that, if only
because sometimes the solution will be "new editor", sometimes
"new chair(s)", and sometimes "time to shut down the WG as
having lost sight of what it is supposed to be doing". Cases
like that may ultimately be the reason we pay you ADs the big
bucks.
john
