Someone else suggested “subject to the recall procedures”; I second that. Consider, if you will, what the process for removing a document author would actually be? I think it would, perhaps, be an appeal, not a recall. > On Mar 16, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/16/2015 12:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> Without diving into definitions in BCPs (translation: "I have not read >> your document lately but I do have an opinion"), I wouldn't consider a >> WG Secretary to be a "management position". Unless I'm mistaken, that >> role involves recording and tracking the progress of things, without >> actually having the power to make decisions or approve things. That >> authority rests ultimately with the WG Chairs; those I do consider to be >> (lowest-level) management roles. > > > There's an essential distinction worth making a clear choice about. > > Some positions have formally-imparted authority. Others might have > little or no formal authority, but have quite a bit of actual leverage > in practice. > > ADs and Chairs and IAOC folk are examples of what would typically be > called 'management'. > > Formally, document writers (authors and editors) and note-takers > (secretaries, scribes, etc.) have no authority. Everything they do is > at the will of chairs and the wg. In practice, of course, they can be > enormously influence, swaying the substance of content. > > Calling such folk "management' is a bit awkward, however, since their > roles are not usually described that way in the rest of the world. > > Perhaps the language should, instead refer to anyone with an explicitly > assigned role? > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail