On May 2, 2013, at 9:47 PM 5/2/13, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 4:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Instead of imposing even more work on the RFC Editor team, I suggest >> that you find someone in the WG, in your company, in the IETF >> community (etc.) to help with the language issues. I did this recently >> with a document in one of the WGs where I'm active and it worked quite >> well (especially if the document is under source control and you can >> just send a patch). > > > +1 > > This goes beyond the simple-but-expensive matter of having the work done by > the RFC Editor. > > With every opportunity, we should move work to the people who want its result. Dave, I agree with you and you make a very important point, that applies broadly to this conversation. In particular, it should be the responsibility of the interested parties to engage community support, and it should be the responsibility of the community to put effort into producing a document that meets requirements of basic writing quality. > > IETF work that is successful has community support. The community wants it > and demonstrates this by working on it. That can (and I think should) > include ensuring basic writing quality. If you'll allow me to dive into process issues and solution engineering briefly, these writing quality issues should be caught well before the document reaches the IESG, in the abstract to ensure that the responsibility (and the work) in producing publishable documents rests with the people who want the document published, and pragmatically because a DISCUSS position of "returned for improvement in writing quality" is at the edge of what can be handled through routine processes. > > If the community does not have enough interest in the work to write it well, > it has bigger problems that won't be remedied by more RFC Editor effort... Yup. > > d/ - Ralph > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net
