From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
There is also the very real issue of document authors not doing some
of the proposed edits, either intentionally or unintentionally.
If there is a problem with review suggestions not being done or being
mangled, wouldn't it be better to have a recheck done as part of the
pre-approval review?
I would think so...
If the document has had pre-approval editing, when it goes into
post-approval editing, one would hope that the editor would look at
the diffs from the earlier edit and only edit the changed sections.
I have no problem with all documents passing through post-approval editing
as a safety net, but for those documents already pre-approval reviewed,
wouldn't it be better to only correct major flaws (missing boilerplate,
etc.). Stylistic consistency is a nice goal, and reasonable people can
disagree on how much effort to put into it. I have heard a lot more
complaints about IETF publication delays than IETF publication quality.
:-)
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
