On 1/5/2014 3:01 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
From Section 1.2:
"A core premise of IETF working groups is that the working group has
final authority over the content of its documents, within the
constraints of the working group charter. No individual has special
authority for the content."
This can be interpreted in different ways. It has been stated that the
document editor is responsible for ensuring that a draft accurately
reflects the decisions that have been made by the working group. The
above text can be read as meaning that the document editor does not have
any authority over the editorial changes. An alternative would be to
drop the "no individual ..." sentence.
Frankly, that sentence is what motivated the paragraph. The IETF
periodically has a problem with an author who thinks that their
judgement carries more weight than the working group's. This paragraph
is meant to remind us all that authors are not the final authority for
content.
If A is an employee of B, A has job responsibilities. But those
responsibilities do not (usually) include having more authority over the
work than B. A is (merely) and agent of B.
(And B is probably an agent of C. Everybody works for somebody. They
should probably write a song about that.)
An author is appointed by the Chair, but works for the working group and
the working group has final authority, not the author. Note that WG
Guidelines and Procedures (RFC 2418) already makes this point:
6.1. WG Chair
...
Document development
Working groups produce documents and documents need authors. The
Chair must make sure that authors of WG documents incorporate
changes as agreed to by the WG (see section 6.3).
I'm not sure how to have the text make this point more clearly in the draft.
In Section 3:
"NOTE: The distinction between an 'author' and an 'editor' is, at
best, subjective. A simplistic rule of thumb is that editors tend
to do the mechanics of incorporating working group detail, whereas
tend to create the detail, subject to working group approval."
The word "authors" may be missing before "whereas tend ...".
You're the third person to note this. I think that counts as consensus...
In Section 4:
"Absent charter restrictions, a working group is free to create new
documents."
Such decisions can be controversial. It is stated (in another document)
Working Group Guidelines & Procedures
that a charter
is a contract between a working group and the IETF to perform a set of
tasks. As an example, a charter might not mention that the working
group can work on standardizing X. The working group Chair posts a
message about the intent to adopt a draft about standardizing X. It
might not be clear to some participants that the working group intended
to take on such work as that task was not mentioned in the charter. To
say it differently, a person may consider the new document as something
minimal where the administrative overhead is not worth the effort;
someone else might consider that he or she has not been given a fair
chance to submit a proposal (see competing draft discussed in Section 5.2).
Interesting point.
I believe working groups often do things like adding a document, or
splitting a document into two or even combining documents, without
changing their charter. I guess I've understood the essential question
for changing the charter to be when the substance of the group's work is
changed.
To the extent that a scenario, of the type you describe, causes debate
within a working group, I would think that it's usually healthy for the
group, since it can produce better clarity about the group's work.
I'm not sure a document like the current draft should seem to be more
precise on this than it currently is. In other words, yes, the
controversy/confusion you cite happens, but we probably should not
change the current draft to affect that.
In Section 5:
"If the working group has already adopted an I-D on a specific
topic, the posting of a new individual I-D on the same topic
could be seen as an attack on the working group processes or
decisions. However, posting an I-D is often a good way to put
new ideas into concrete form and into the public domain for
consideration and discussion."
As a nit the draft is not in the public domain. That term is sometimes
hmmm. yeah. Strange wording choice, especially since as you note the
phrase is a formal term of art. No memory of what produced that
wording. I think better wording would be:
However, posting an I-D is often a good way to put
new ideas into concrete form, for public
consideration and discussion."
read as "no one owns or controls the material in any way". The quoted
text mentions that posting a new (individual) draft can be seen as an
attack but it is a good way to put ideas in concrete form. It is like
saying doing X is good but if a person does X the person will look bad.
It is not clear what the guide to common practice is.
The paragraph is meant to counter-act the reaction people sometimes
have, that posting an alternative draft is automatically a bad thing, by
noting that it can be a valid form of commenting on an existing, other
draft.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net