Re: WG Chair as author of WG document

All,

I think we need to be careful if "changing" is "replacing". Some that have had 
an impact on a document need to respond e.g. to IPR polls. 

/Loa

Skickat från min iPhone

> 21 dec 2013 kl. 02:13 skrev Abdussalam Baryun 
> <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>:
>
> 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