On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 4/21/15 7:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I think this would be overkill. Of course it depends on the frequency
of the times this happens. My guess is a very small 0.001 or
something like that percentage.
That's probably the case but it still seems to be a problem (I've
had it happen, as well). I think part of this is cultural and a
failure to understand IETF process (i.e. creating bogus, orchestrated
support for moving a document along), but it may be worthwhile, at
some point, to create a mechanism for a "coauthor" to either take a
draft down or expire it early. Not a high priority.
Seeing as the motivation for doing this (and similar things) is to try
ride the coattails of well known participants I think we can solve
this "issue" by having people who this happens to publicly (in the WG
or on discuss@) call out the fact that this happened.
Removing the benefit of doing this (and turning it into a detriment
instead) seems like an easy, no new process, etc solution.
W
Melinda
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf