Joe Touch wrote: >> However, such an editorial effort it expensive and I do not understand why >> this >> additional expense is needed. It was not needed for 25 or so years. And >> now we >> are more sensitive to expenses. > > The set of people writing docs has increased substantially. The writing > skills of that set have diversified, and the pool of potential support > has increased. It seems like the two mutually support the use of > professional editing.
We have always had some authors who were truly awful writers. Whether we have more of them today is, I believe, really not relevant. If an effort is worthy of adoption by the Internet, surely it is reasonable to demand that it have enough support to be able to obtain its own means of ensuring that the writing is adequate. Having sufficient community support is an essential requirement, if an effort it going to be successful. Requiring that the effort demonstrate that support, in various pragmatic ways, is merely reasonable. What is NOT reasonabel is a model that has the IETF formal infrastructure -- management, editors, etc. -- do the grunt work of making design and writing decisions. We have amply demonstrated that this latter model does not scale or is, at the least, too expensive. (Well, I guess that's a form of not scaling?) This should all be part of moving the burden of work back to authors and working groups... where it belongs. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
