On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Stephen Kent wrote:
So, unless the folks who volunteered to assume responsibility for the doc (all of whom were already listed as co-authors) are prepared to do a much better job in addressing these shortcomings, I object to continuing with this work.
It sounds like you're objecting to the work because the editors of this WG draft have been insufficiently responsive to your criticisms.
That sounds like a WG management issue, and I am disappointed that you would ask the WG to abandon useful work because of it.
I take the view that document editors have been given the task of documenting the consensus of a WG. If you think the editors aren't documenting consensus correctly or are just doing a poor job with the writing, take it up with the chairs. It might be helpful to recruit some alternative editors, particularly ones who don't seem to have a strong bias re: the topic - finding good document editors is a persistent problem in many WGs. At the same time, recognize that if you're too far in the rough (which you might be), your own criticisms may not result in changes to the doc.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
