It is ok to change authors when adopted or after, but I don't agree to do
changes on adopted big points of the work, even a DT (requested through
chairs or AD) should not directly change the adopted work only after
WG agreement. The chair should make sure no big point changes occur until
the WG agrees, even if he/she authored it.
AB
On Friday, December 20, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 12/20/2013 4:46 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
However, the preference is not to be an author. In particular, if you
are an author you should not be the chair deciding or document
shepherding about the topic. This is one reason why we have multiple
chairs.
In general, it is easy to get into a situation where it is difficult
to progress a document because all the parties who should do
something about the document are recused due to being authors. Having
other people hold the pen and the chairs doing their chair job is a
far better model.
On 12/20/2013 7:36 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
More eyeballs see more issues, adding to the
gene pool etc.
But there is a limit to how far this takes, and a policy that
entirely forbids WG chairs from generating documents will just make
sure that people competent in the subject can no longer be WG
chairs.
The flexibility of the model for IETF working group management means that
it can be tailored to the situation. The problem with this is that it
requires careful thought and sometimes-painful candor. The trade-offs are
between management complexity versus group efficiency.
In one extreme, a small, cohesive group, which has deep understanding of
the work to be done, will probably function smoothly almost independent of
who is running the group. Having the chair be an author in such a case
usually goes well.
In the other extreme, a large, divisive group working on a difficult topic
needs extremely careful management. This means both the choice of chairs
and authors and they way they behave needs to be calculated with attention
to avoiding problems while also making forward progress.
Remember that the ultimate goal of an IETF effort is community /use/ of
what is produced. Merely getting a document published isn't the important
accomplishment. Having the community use it is. The ultimate point behind
rough consensus is to develop the support that makes that use likely.
At the outset of a working group, these concerns require considering what
is known about the group that is likely to participate, what is known about
any current authors, what is known about potential chairs, and what is
known about the work to be done. Any indications of technical complexity
or political or personal challenges makes it advisable to set up the
working group with assignments that are more pristine and possibly less
"convenient".
In other words, greater working group risk requires narrower working group
management roles.
Changing authors, as a document is adopted, is merely one of the ways to
attend to these issues.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net