Hi,
(I've trimmed some cc:s)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:02:40PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
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?
I really dislike this suggestion. If someone who has no formal
authority and serves at the pleasure of the relevant WG chairs is
abusing their position of influence, the right thing to do is not to
expand the definition of Official Role-Holder. The thing to do is to
complain to the people who _do_ have official authority and use the
processes we have.
For the obvious problem with expanding the relevant class to
"influential persons" is that the very next thing we must do is
include anyone who happens to have influence by virtue of their long
service, authoritative viewpoints on a topic, past service in
"management", lengthy list of RFCs, or whatever. Once we do that,
we're well into the developing multiple classes of participants as an
official part of our processes. I think that would be a terrible
precedent to set.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com