On Friday, January 12, 2007 04:04:08 PM -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto
shepherds from chairs? I at least hope all my WGs will produce
documents. That means most of my chairs will be proto shepherds.
Does the difference matter?
I guess that depends on how much you want to depend on access controls vs
people not doing things they're not supposed to. I believe the process
admits the occasional shepherd who is not a chair or AD; if nothing else, I
could imagine a chair who steps down but continues to shepherd his
documents which are already partway through the process. Certainly not
every chair will shepherd every document produced by his WG.
So, a WG chair has certain rights with respect to documents in his WG. And
a shepherd has certain rights with respect to documents he shepherds. The
question is, is the difference great enough that we can't simply give all
of those people the same powers, at least with respect to any given WG?
Note that even if we just give all the shepherding powers to chairs, we
still may need the concept of a shepherd who is not a chair, because I
presume the tracker will inherit its idea of who is chair of what from
other sources. It may be desirable, both here and in other cases, to be
able to give someone some of the bits that go along with a role without
actually publishing their name as a point of contact. Having that ability
encourages people to delegate authorization instead of giving away their
credentials.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf