Subject: [Techspec] IETF steering of publisher editing

From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:39:40 -0500

There is an error in mankin-pub-req-06.  Requirement: 

o Req-POSTEDIT-5 - At the direction of the IESG or (IRSG or IAB), the publisher should publish a document with minimal editing. 

was left in by accident.  It should not be there.  However it was an attempt to capture a requirement originating from  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eronen-rfc-selective-experiment-00.txt.

The goals of this draft probably can be formulated in different ways.  

	1/ requirement to publish (chunks of) text verbatim,
	   because they have been adequately reviewed and arrived
	   at by some careful negotiation.

	2/ requirement to adjust the level of editorial scrutiny
	   applied by the RFC Editor

The question is:  Do we want to capture the requirement for editorial steering at all and if so what formulation of the requirement is better.

Stephen Hayes

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:00:02 +0200

> The question is:  Do we want to capture the requirement for editorial steering at all and if so what formulation of the requirement is better.

Personal opinion: Yes. I would suggest something like:

When the approving body (IESG, IRSG or IAB) indicates satisfaction with the stylistic quality
of a draft, the publisher should limit editing to non-stylistic aspects.

When the approving body indicates that given text must be published verbatim, the
publisher shall do so.

     Brian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:55:07 +0200

Hi,

on 2006-04-11 00:39 Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) said the following:
> o Req-POSTEDIT-5 - At the direction of the IESG or (IRSG or IAB), the
> publisher should publish a document with minimal editing.
> 
> was left in by accident. It should not be there. However it was an
> attempt to capture a requirement originating from
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eronen-rfc-selective-experiment-00.txt.
> 
> The question is:  Do we want to capture the requirement for editorial
> steering at all and if so what formulation of the requirement is
> better.

I'd like to note that in order to be sure that we can actually run
experiments such as the one proposed by draft-eronen-rfc-selective-...
(or similar ones) the contract with the publisher has to provide
for the possibility of giving specific directions regarding the editing
level of individual documents, something like the text captured in 
Req-POSTEDIT-5 above.

If the contract doesn't provide for this, we won't even be able to run
such experiments to find out if they make sense or not.

	Henrik

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:51:35 -0400

In my personal opinion:

> publisher should publish a document with minimal editing.

This should, indeed, be deleted.

And,

> 	   at by some careful negotiation.

Could be handled by:

"In specific instances, where some or all of document text is the result
  of a careful negotiation of contributions (within or between working
  groups, reviewers, etc), the IESG will require that the publisher
  publish the text verbatim.   It is the expectation of the IETF
  community that this will not be done often."

> 	   applied by the RFC Editor

This is largely addressed in Req-POSTEDIT-1 through -4 (copied below for
convenience).  There is some possibility that there should be clarity
about how the style is specified or whether it should be
overridden by a different set of guidelines for a specific document.

But the notion of "minimal editing" is not actionable -- either there
is a strong reason why the text should be included verbatim (see
above), or we need to manage to the existing requirements.

WRT getting in the way of the type of experiment proposed in
draft-eronen-rfc-selective-experiment-00.txt -- I'm sympathetic,
to the extent we believe the IETF community *wants* to be
able to engage in such experiments (I'll observe it's a personal
-00 submission).   But, much of the motivation of that experiment
should be undone if we do the TechSpec job properly.

Leslie.

[From the -06 document:]
>   o  Req-POSTEDIT-1 - The IETF technical publisher should review the 
>       document for grammar, spelling, formatting, adherence to 
>       boilerplate, document structure, proper use of keywords, etc. The 
>       review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with 
>       previously published documents.  
> 
>    o  Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents 
>       should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the 
>       appropriate technical representatives as defined in the IETF 
>       processes. 
> 
>    o  Req-POSTEDIT-3 - The IETF Technical editor should refrain from 
>       stylistic changes that introduce a substantial review load but 
>       only provides incremental increase in the clarity of the 
>       specification.  Specific guidelines on the types of changes 
>       allowed may be further specified, but ultimately restraint in 
>       editing must be imposed by the IETF technical publisher.  Changes 
>       for stylistic consistency should be done only when there are major 
>       problems with the quality of the document. 
> 
>    o  Req-POSTEDIT-4 - The IETF Technical editor should refrain from 
>       changes to improve readability that may change technical and 
>       consensus wording.  Specific guidelines on the types of changes 
>       allowed may be further specified, but ultimately restraint in 
>       editing must be imposed by the IETF technical publisher.