Subject: [Techspec] Summary of pre vs post editing discussions and proposals

From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:16:14 -0600

There seemed to be general consensus on shifting emphasis from post to pre approval editing.

The contentious issue seems to be how to deal with changes to the documents that occur after a pre-approval review.  Although there were many warnings about the dangers of changing carefully crafted compromise text introduced during the IESG review, no one (except me) said it should be prohibited.  Most voices seemed to accept that some light consistency editing could be performed in the final review provided that great discipline was used.

The processes (or procedures) to decide when the IESG introduced changes warrant sending it back to the WG and when it can go forward are IETF processes (or procedures) so are not requirements on the technical publisher.

In general, there seemed to also be agreement that stylistic changes for document consistency should be done sparingly.

Recommendations:

1. Emphasis be placed on shifting from post-approval to pre-approval editing

2. Both pre and post approval editing are kept as requirements on the technical publisher.

3. Wording be added to the requirement on post approval editing indicating that the technical publisher should make minimal changes in the post approval edit since there are limited opportunities to catch any errors introduced by the technical publisher.

4. Changes for stylistic consistency should be done only when there are major problems with the quality of a document.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec