Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 3:16 PM -0700 4/14/06, Sandy Ginoza wrote:I think the results of the experiment are inconclusive. Thus far, only one of six documents involved in this experiment has made it into the RFC Editor queue.
I think it would be more accurate to say "the results aren't known yet." The fact is that the natural timescale for measuring
results is many months.
That document was in the WG I co-chair, so I feel comfortable speaking for it.It did not enter the queue until just recently (maybe the week or two prior to IETF).The document went into the RFC Editor queue six weeks ago.Alice has not yet reviewed the diffs (as it has not made it to the front of the queue), so we do not know whether the pre-editing has helped.As we reported to Bert back in November, the experiment from the WG side went smoothly and quickly. As Jari Arkko said at the time:At 4:41 PM +0200 11/2/05, Jari Arkko wrote:The change was really minor. Language in the document was fairly good already. Well, there were some dozens of changes as I recall, but none of them appeared to impact readibility in significant degree.In other words, the early review step didn't impede us and hopefully helped the overall process.
There's a question here which, I suggest, is actually out of
scope for techspec: should we push the onus of document
quality assurance back to the WGs? I suggest that discussing
that here and now would be a bit of a distraction.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
