Re: "Stuckees?"

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

I think we need to reach some consensus in the "problem"
WG on this question (which is essentially how far we want to
formally delegate, and recognize, the responsibility for quality 
control of documents). If we want this to extend beyond WG chairs 
and editors, then it will need a name and job description.

   Brian

Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> 
> > Let's put that question aside,
> > for the moment, though, and look at the broader question:
> > does the IETF need this role (whatever it is called) at this point?
> 
> I'm not sure.  I like the idea of people being obligated to pay
> attention to draft revisions in a timely fashion, but I see a
> couple of potential downsides:
> - The obligation to pay attention could result in apparent interest
>         in and hence a longer life for a draft that deserves to be
>         put out of its misery in a prompt and humane fashion.
> - Recalling the discussion about I-D authorship as a measure of
>         job performance, we may see people whose PHB's set goals
>         for them to become "core WG members".
> Both of these can generate interest in a draft that is based on
> something other than technical utility/merit/etc.  That's not
> necessarily fatal to the idea, but it could increase the effort
> required to discern the real level of interest in something
> when that needs to be determined (cf. past discussions about
> AD workload, as deciding whether to continue to work on something
> can often entail AD involvement).
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------