Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Fw: (from Techspec) Non-Author Editing

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:54:39 -0600

I agree with Leslie and Brian on their Techspec postings (see below), but 
this does remind me that we were trying to figure out principles in PESCI 
(and had a lot of consequences-of-principles, but possibly don't have things 
boiled down to principles yet).

In the following case,

Brian Carpenter wrote:

> Leslie Daigle wrote:
>>
>> (Commenting as an individual)
>
> ditto
>
>> So, your example is supporting that the path to "no post approval
>> changes" is "pre-approval editing", not "no editing".
>
> This sounds like a good principle to me, and it creates the possibility
> of parallelism during the editing stage, as long as it stays under
> the responsibility of each WG.
>
>    Brian

I'm thinking there's an IETF principle behind Brian's "as long as" caveat 
that looks something like

Working groups are responsible for the text of specifications they develop 
from the point of adoption as a working group draft until publication. The 
working group controls all changes to the text of a working group draft.

And, to pop up Yet Another Level - did we decide whether to continue 
developing the principles list, and (if so), who, how, and where?

Thanks,

Spencer 

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:37:30 -0500

>>>>> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> writes:

    Spencer> I'm thinking there's an IETF principle behind Brian's "as
    Spencer> long as" caveat that looks something like

    Spencer> Working groups are responsible for the text of
    Spencer> specifications they develop from the point of adoption as
    Spencer> a working group draft until publication. The working
    Spencer> group controls all changes to the text of a working group
    Spencer> draft.

I don't think this is true.  I think an IETF consensus can and should
be able to change the text of a WG draft over a WG objection.