On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Robin Whittle wrote: > Short version: If (as I think Joel implies) it is a condition for > passing this draft to IESG approval that all > comments be either addressed in the current draft > or (I guess) be the subject of persuasive counter- > arguments in RRG list discussion, then this > condition has not been met.
There is no requirement that all comments be addressed. > There seems to have been a pattern of the chair > silently ignoring constructive comments about this > draft - from me and at least two other people. As part of the editorial function, I exercise my best judgement as to what comments should and should not be reflected in the text. Purely editorial comments (typos, grammatical issues) I typically accept immediately (assuming they're correct ;-). Semantic changes get more consideration. If significant shifts in semantics and/or comments about sensitive sentences are suggested, I will typically wait a bit to try to judge the response of the group, both public and private. >> The current I-D addresses all comments that were received during the >> review period. (There actually were a few comments beyond the one >> reviewer.) > > I think the first sentence is incorrect. It would have been more relevant to say that it addressed all of the comments from IRSG members. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
