Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Your assertion of process error under 2026 have been noted by the ADs.
Explaination of your incorrect assertion have also been noted by the
ADs. AFAIK, the ADs have not make any conclusion of that assertion.

The decision to drop requirements is explained in the wg chairs
statement and is independent of your appeal.

But your (and David) volunteer to take over as editor of requirements is
also noted. Nevertheless, the value of requirements is lesser now and it
is agreed in Salt Lake to drop the requirements. (Minutes will be
available soon).

You may disagree with the decision, of course.

-James Seng

> When I made my notice under 2026 of a process issue I tried to keep
> both the issue, its background, and the proposed remedy as narrow
> and as constructive as I could.
>
> I asserted that the was a process error in the co-chairs failure to
> direct the editors to be responsive to two specific comments, and
> that the remedy could be as simple as the co-chairs direction to the
> editors to be responsive, and that until the document reflects the
> requirements of the WG that the IESG defer its action on the draft.
> This would have captured my test-case, comments by others, and had
> as small a consequential scope as could reasonably be expected to
> fix the document, and fix nothing else.
>
> It is a fact that a co-chair is a co-editor.
>
> It is a fact that the co-chairs don't think that the editors have
> been non-responsive.
>
> Accepting documents by a working group, and discarding documents
> by a working group, are working group actions. Every contributor,
> chair, AD, etc., may hum one way or another on the consensus to
> act on the question.
>
> Now that the response to one or more process demands for either a
> change, or an accountability for changes, or lack of changes, is
> known to be abandonment in-place by the current editors, the only
> proper course of conduct open is to find new editors.
>
> I suggest that David Hopwood and I take on the responsibility of
> being editors of the requirements draft, and that he and I bear the
> responsibility for ensuring that only the necessary WG time is used
> to make only the necessary changes in the requirements draft. I've
> not asked David, but I have seen his note of today, and his prior
> notes, both on changes and the frustration with non-response.
>
> Assuming that Seng and Wenzel have expressed a desire to cease the
> duty of being editors for a requirements document for this working
> group, I volunteer. David has as well. There may be others able and
> willing to do so as well.
>
> The editors need only provide access to the current nroff source.
>
> Eric
>