Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 3:01 PM Michael Richardson
> <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Turn the experienced people into WG secretaries: that lets them push all the
>> buttons if they need to, helping new chairs along.
> Last I knew, Secretaries couldn't request publication. That request
> represents the judgement that the document and publication request
> have WG consensus, a Chair judgement. By the way, while it is common
> to consult your AD, WG Secretaries can be appointed by the WG Chair.
The secretaries can push the buttons, but they don't have the authority to do
so. (Like RPNs and RTs, most can do delegated acts under the authority of an MD)
Knowing where the buttons in the DT is one of the mysteries for new people.
(Even ex-ADs often don't know where all the buttons are, because new ones are
created regularly.)
>> This is also why I want the contributor section encoded better into the XML,
>> and I'd like the WG chairs and shepherd for a WG document always listed, so that in the
>> future, the DT can more clearly acknowledge this.
> I would be fine with the document Shepherd, WG Chair, and sponsoring
> AD being listed in documents as long as it was not too prominent near
> the end and only the Authors/Editors are listed on the front page.
The contributor section is at the end.
> But
> they shouldn't be labeled as a "contributor" unless they actually made
> a technical contribution. Being listed as a contributor has IPR
> implications.
If you think that WG chairs, in the process of finding consensus among
differing options aren't making a technical contribution, then maybe you need
to think again about what that means.
This is not a zero-sum game.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
