On 6/9/26, 5:45 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: >> I read the -04 draft. I do not support adoption for the following reasons. > adoption != approval, so I think that's a bit strong.
Nope. I think the overlap with the other streams is a fundamental architectural problem with this draft and that the RSWG should not adopt it. >> The topic of AI-authored content is currently a big thread on the ietf@ and >> wgchairs@ mailing lists. If that diverges from whatever this draft ends up >> with, it would require the IETF to provide its own overriding view, once >> they have a consensus. > Correct. But if the IETF does reach a consensus, that should inform what we > do here. And if the IETF decides not to do anything now, which is quite possible, what happens here? As for the conflict/impact with 9281 and 2418-section 6.3, perhaps I did not explain it clearly. Those documents already define the author/editor roles (differently), and this draft provides yet another pair of definitions. > No, I don't see that it steps in at all; I certainly drafted it with every > intention of changing nothing within the streams. That's exactly why is says > that dispute resolution is done by the streams; it actually makes it clearer > than today that authorship (and editorship) is decided by the streams. > because I think the draft is compatible with IETF current practice. We strongly disagree. But at least we’re reasonable about it.
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
