Re: changing name for WG drafts was Re: WG Chairs Training

[Spencer Dawkins <spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com>]

Hi, Avri,

This makes sense. In my own experience, the move to working
group draft was a lot less formal that what we're kicking around
today.

Interestingly, I'm sitting in v6ops where an old draft is now 00
because it moved from ngtrans. Yet another case, probably not
common, but worth mentioning (once!)

Spencer

--- Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> >
> > For the last several years, the working group chairs
> training
> > has been ambiguous as to whether this is a good idea or not,
> > leaning slightly toward "yes", because you lose continuity
> when
> > you change the draft name and reset to revision 00.
> >
> > The real answer MAY BE "no", because no one will read it
> unless
> > they click on it from the working group home page, so go
> ahead
> > and change the name and revision number.
> >
>
>
> I have another argument for  changing the name when a draft
> becomes a WG draft. It is a concrete marker of the transition
> of change-rights from the individual author(s) to the WG.  In
> effect
> a document becomes a new thing when it becomes a WG document
> so a
> loss of continuity is, in effect, a good thing.  Remembering
> also that
> the primary editorship can be handed over to another WG
> participant
> anytime in the continuing lifetime of the document it makes
> even less
> sense to keep the initial author's name in the title.
>
> a.
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com