[rfc-i] More-than-editorial changes in AUTH48

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Nov 19 10:23:22 PST 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 8:38 AM -0800 11/19/09, Joe Touch wrote:
>> If it's too late to make these changes as a group, then it's also
>> inappropriate to consider them as AUTH48. They're not merely typographic
>> or grammatical; they underly the discussion on which the consensus is based.
> 
> The IESG often purposely delays more-than-editorial document changes
> until AUTH48; why should the IAB be held to different standards?

The same standards should apply. IMO, if the changes represent community
consensus, then no problem. If not - if they represent only the
interests of the IAB, IESG, or any thing less than an open community
discussion, then I disagree that they should be allowed.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAksFjRkACgkQE5f5cImnZrsplwCfbx43+rFwV9wloRAcXdwqUgaQ
lTAAoKNqz3BuGmFnSV2EL29K1ZfnxeP5
=UCPp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list