> On 28 Apr 2021, at 15:14, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I think you've just described TERM, where the charter and its document editor are already being micromanaged. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx
