Subject: [HOKEY] selection of editors for hokey documents

From: Tim Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:21:21 -0500

Folks,

There has been some recent traffic on this list concerning the editor
role for the current working group documents draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm
and draft-ietf-hokey-preauth-ps.  Glen has indicated that new editors
will be chosen for both of these documents, and recently announced that
Katrin Hoeper will prepare the next version of draft-ietf-key-mgm.  The
former editor, Yoshihiro Ohba, questioned the reasons given for the
change and requested my review.

The working group chair is empowered to select - and replace - document
editors for working group documents.  The chair needs to have the right
editors in place throughout the document lifecycle to ensure forward
progress and meet the working group’s milestones.  This is one of the
primary management tools afforded the chair, and it is not subject to
working group consensus.

Note that the “right editor” may be different people at different
stages.  Some people are concept people, others are detail people.  Some
people start strong, others finish strong. Documenting working group
consensus could conflict with acting as an effective technical
contributor.

A change in editors is not a value judgement.  Concept people and detail
people both have their contributions to make.  Starters and finishers  
are
complementary - neither can be effective without the other.  It is the
chairs’ responsibility to have the right people at the right stage
throughout this lifecycle.  Selecting a new editor to achieve that goal
should not diminish the contributions of the previous editor, and all
contributions need to be recognized.  That is one reason most RFCs have
multiple names on the masthead.

I have experienced these transitions in several roles.  I have been the
replacement editor, and the replaced editor.  I have been the WG chair
making this decision.  It is not an easy process for anyone.   However,
it is the working group chair’s responsibility to make these hard
decisions.

Enough background, on to the specific matter at hand.

The chairs are doing their best to respond to pressure to complete the
current document suite and move on to rechartering.  Some of that
pressure is self-imposed, and frankly some of it comes from me.  I
encourage chairs to consider all the tools available to them and review
those decisions.

Glen has determined that new editors for these documents are needed at
this stage in the lifecycle.  I know this was a hard decision, but it  
was
his responsibility to make that decision.  I appreciate him making the
hard decisions, and staying focused on the end goal - good engineering
that supports the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth
operation of the Internet.

We all recognize Yoshi’s important contributions to date, and
appreciate his efforts getting the documents to this stage in the
lifecycle.  His name will stay on the cover page along with that of the
new editor(s) in recognition of those contributions.  I have encouraged
Yoshi to sieze this opportunity to focus on his technical contributions,
rather than documenting working group consensus.  I know from experience
that these conflicting roles can be a burden, and look forward to the
contributions he will make unencumbered.

Sincerely,

Tim Polk
AD

_______________________________________________
HOKEY mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey