Paul Wouters <paul(_at_)nohats(_dot_)ca> wrote:
Paul> On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Ronald Tse wrote:
>> It is hardly Werner’s fault that consensus is difficult to come by in
>> this group. Given that the OpenPGP Working Group has “already” been
>> disbanded
Paul> I'm also confused what that means for the bis draft. If there is no
Paul> working group, then anyone can submit any kind of draft proposal as
Paul> a bis document. But there is no WG, so I don't think the WG can
Paul> decide to replace anyone on any draft?
You are certainly right: without a WG, whomever wants to edit a document can
do so.
Paul> I'm not sure though a "bis" document could replace an existing
Paul> standard without a WG behind it? It would seem odd for an AD
Paul> sponsored document to replace a WG document ?
It would violate the rules for an ISE to replace an document that had IETF
Consensus.
An AD sponsored document does get IETF Consensus, so yes, it can "bis" a
now-disbanded WG document. It is really the only way to do that other than
spinning up a WG, or perhaps, adopting the document somewhere else.
(SAAG?..)
Paul> As for the editing situation. It is possible that it would be
Paul> beneficial for an editor to be added to the document for improved
Paul> response time to various edits of the document. Maybe even someone
Paul> less involved in openpgp so they can keep their role as much
Paul> administrative as possible without technical bias?
I strongly agree: more authors produce better documents, up to some n^2
Mythical Man Month limitation. Three people working together is ideal in my
opinion.
I also think that we disband WGs *WAY TOO SOON*, and it's one of the major
reasons we don't have more Internet Standards.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp