Subject: RE: [Techspec] Pre vs Post approval editing

From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:35:04 -0600

> There is a significant problem with have a document edited 
> pre-approval and then not re-editing post-approval, namely the 
> changes that get introduced during the approval process itself. A 
> typical change is "add a section to the Security Considerations 
> talking about how Wxyz interacts with this protocol." Unless the 
> authors use exactly the same spelling, capitalization, reference 
> format, and so on, that new section will not match the rest of the 
> document.

Does this mean that you would permit stylistic changes as part of the post-approval editing?  
> 
> 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?

> 
> 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.

Stephen Hayes

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:08:34 -0600

From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>

> 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...

> 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

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:13:38 -0800

>the post-approval editing?

Only to match any stylistic changes that were introduced in the 
pre-approval editing (or that the document authors were trying to 
follow themselves). If a document has had pre-approval editing, the 
post-approval editing really should only be on the diffs.

>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?

Maybe, but maybe not. It really depends on the purpose of the edits 
and how intrusive the Publisher is allowed to be in making changes. 
Some authors are quite graceful about being edited, while others are 
not so graceful. Giving the Publisher the ability to prevent a 
document from even getting to the approval stage because the authors 
don't want to implement some editorial changes may or may not be what 
the IETF wants. For that matter, giving the Publisher the unilateral 
right to make editorial changes in post-approval editing may or may 
not be what the IETF wants.

A possible way to frame it is that pre-approval editing be considered 
a polite foreshadowing of what the authors should expect in the 
post-approval editing. The authors should either incorporate all of 
the pre-approval editing (the norm) or do most of it and tell the 
Publisher why they didn't do some of it. That input could be used in 
the post-approval editing.

>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.).

If it takes only a few minutes to correct minor flaws in the text 
that has changed during review, there seems like no good reason not 
to do so.

>   Stylistic consistency is a nice goal, and reasonable people can 
>disagree on how much effort to put into it.

Fully agree. That's why pre-approval editing is valuable: bring up 
the changes when there feels like less urgency.

>I have heard a lot more complaints about IETF publication delays 
>than IETF publication quality.

Absolutely right.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium