On 4/30/18 10:33, Andrej Ota wrote: > Hi Joe & opsawg, > > >>>> 2) Reactivity of the Authors. >>>> >>>> As far as I know, we have responded to most posts regarding the content of >>>> the document, with point-by-point replies, >>> >>> No. >>> >>> See the list archives, especially May 2017. There are multiple people >>> suggesting that you have *not* done this, and that you *should* do this. >> >> I for one have asked for a summary of changes when I did my last review. >> I did not see it. There was a subsequent revision that did seem to >> absorb my comments, but there wasn't a response to me email. Typically, >> when authors receive feedback, they respond in line to either ack or >> discuss points (typos notwithstanding). > > We're still going through a year's worth of archive to locate WG comments and > link them to changes. Currently the focus is on security section as that one > was the most contentious, but the goal is to get this information out in the > open. > > Going forward, we've done bad and we're learning+adjusting based on all > feedback.
Thank you. > > >> >>> >>> See line-by-line reviews done by me, which were generally ignored. >>> Despite that, I did *multiple* such reviews, until such time as it became >>> clear that such reviews were entirely unproductive. >>> >>>> but there has been, for various logistic reasons, long delays in >>>> submitting the resulting new documents. Hopefully this has been addresses >>>> in last versions and we will continue with more rapid uploads until >>>> process completes one way or other. >>> >>> The issue isn't rapid uploads. The issue is engagement. It's not >>> productive to ignore the messages on the mailing list for 6 months, and >>> then to issue a new release saying "we fixed stuff". >> >> Spot on. One needs to engage. I am pleased with the authors' attempts >> to do better these past couple of weeks. I want to see this momentum >> continue. > > We have the next e-mail for section 9 changes almost ready and we're taking > care to be both watching and responding on the mailing list. Again, thanks. > You can start with e-mail I've already sent that comes with commentary of > what we changed and for what reason. There's going to be few more coming in > to spare you from trying to diff all by yourself and spend time thinking > about "why" something changed. My point was that as reviews come in, keep the discussion going. I realize there may be delays, but let's avoid the need to keep doing "digest" updates moving forward. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
