On 01/02/2014 04:23 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > On 01/01/2014 22:08, Ted Lemon wrote: >> This argument boils down to "ADs can abuse process, so we ought not to >> ever publish a document that might provide process for them to abuse. > Ted, I believe the point is that the AD concerned would not be abusing > the process, they would simply be making a different judgement call, or > a stricter interpretation (for what ever reason) of the in place PM > requirements than the authors and preceding reviewers of the text. > > The -03 text is a significant improvement, but I still fear the impact > of single issue technical politics on the output of our document stream. But Ted also pointed out that there is already plenty of ammunition for an overly zealous AD to use to have that bad effect. And you and others are I think also saying that that did happen in the past. If so, then this BCP will have no impact in that respect - what is already possible will continue to be possible regardless of what happens with this draft. S. > > Stewart >