On 05/15/2013 11:33 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically authorized in a WG's charter.
- Keith
Why? There's definitely a process failure there, and it should be blamed on the WG chairs and/or the AD, who should have either moved the work out of the working group or worked on updating the charter.
ADs shouldn't have to micro-manage the WGs and keep track of whether
every single document that a WG is working on is authorized by its
charter. Fundamentally, it's the WG chair's job to stay within the charter.
What I was addressing with my above statement is that there seems to be
a presumption on the part of some people that a WG can produce anything
it wants, and that the IESG is under an obligation to approve such work
unless it can object on some very specific grounds. I can understand
something resembling such a presumption for work that the WG is
specifically chartered to do. We don't want WGs investing their
members' time and energy to produce something that will never see the
light of day, and WG members need some assurance that their efforts are
likely to bear fruit at least as far as publication is concerned. But
I see no reason that a WG should be able to presume that the IESG should
ultimately accept something that they weren't specifically chartered to
do in the first place.
Though probably a better remedy than to reject the document outright,
would be for IESG to treat such documents as individual submissions.
Keith