Tom, Thanks for the review....
> Nits/editorial comments: > > The Ombudsteam is taken for granted from Section 2 onwards. It would be > nice to mention in the Introduction that the IESG mentioned > Ombudspersons in its statement of anti-harassment policy [1], but did > not define the procedures under which the Ombudsteam would be > constituted and under which they would operate. This document remedies > that lack. It is my opinion that this document is not intended to build upon [1] so much as to address the whole situation. It doesn't feel right to me to pick out this specific item, when (in fact) [1] does little more than say that "harassment is something up with which we will not put." The Introduction has "this document sets forth procedures to deal with such harassing behavior" and I think the breadth of that statement covers what is in this document. > Reference URIs [1] and [2] are identical. Should one be removed? It's a feature of xml2rfc that we cannot fathom! The RFC Editor will have to resolve it. > Presumably the Ombudsteam web site will be set up upon approval of this > document -- it does not exist at the moment. Yes. And he email address, I think. Another thankless task for Jari. > Section 4.1, first paragraph, fourth line: s/objection/objections/ Thanks. Adrian _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
