Yeah, I have the same reaction. I think they are used to doing things a particular way, and doing it a new way just feels daunting. I am really skeptical that it's actually much more work. Sigh. I'm pretty butthurt from my recent AUTH48, so possibly more cynical than I should be.
> On 16 Apr 2025, at 14:28, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Private] > I do get that the RPC is doing a single pass through the document. > My point is that they shouldn't, and that the argument that that's > somehow prohibitively expensive needs some support, given > that publishing houses routinely do it the way I am suggesting > at a far lower cost than we pay for publication. > > -Ekr > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 1:03 PM Eliot Lear <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 16.04.2025 20:19, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>> Jay, >>> >>> Thanks for the update. I am puzzled by the following paragraph. >>> >>> > Working cooperatively with authors who use GitHub is a more complex >>> > proposition and is still being looked at. A stumbling block is the >>> > regularly requested feature for the editors to send PRs, labelled as >>> > format edits or content edits or by severity or with some other label. >>> > Unfortunately this just does not fit with the way that editors work, >>> > which is to identify and correct issues as they are found during a >>> > review pass, whether those issues are formatting or content, or low >>> > severity or high severity. Switching to a process with multiple edit >>> > passes, or where every edit leads to an individually labelled commit, >>> > would drastically increase the editing time and the IETF LLC has made >>> > it clear that this would not be acceptable. The RPC plans to put out a >>> > proposal for community discussion at IETF 123 Madrid on how it might >>> > support authors who work in GitHub. >>> >>> First, breaking up edits between copy edit and formatting is >>> orthogonal to GitHub, although they serve the same basic purpose, >>> which is to make it easier for authors and the community to determine >>> what has changed. >>> >>> Second, I am surprised to hear that you think this is prohibitive, >>> because to a first order this separation is what happens when you make >>> the first editorial pass on the markdown and then translate it to >>> XML. There are of course some minor formatting changes that get made >>> in markdown, but based on my experience backporting RPC changes into >>> markdown I could at least live with that separation. I agree that >>> individual commits would be prohibitive, though what *would* be >>> valuable would be if the aforementioned markdown changes were >>> presented as a PR so they could be reviewed and updated as necessary >>> using our ordinary processes. >>> >>> On the bigger picture, whatever the RPC's current processes, standard >>> practice in book publishing is to have copy-editing occur on >>> un-typeset versions of the author's manuscript (e.g., a Word file) >>> followed by typesetting of the final manuscript. This roughly >>> corresponds to the content/formatting split that is discussed >>> here. Can you say why you believe this would be prohibitive in this >>> case? >> I read what Jay wrote differently. He was stating that there is a request >> that people tag PRs with different qualities like priority or formatting and >> that these PRs be handled differently based on the tags, and THAT flow would >> fly in the face of how what editors do today. Am I misreading what was >> written? >> >> Eliot >> >> >> >>> >>> -Ekr >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 3:53 PM Jay Daley <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> There’s a nbew blog post that readers of this list might find interesting: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/blog/rpc-retreat-2025/ >>>> >>>> "In early April 2025, the RFC Production Center (RPC) and IETF LLC senior >>>> staff met for the first RPC retreat following the contract change that now >>>> has the RPC reporting directly to the IETF Executive Director. This was a >>>> high-level retreat, the first of its kind for the RPC, looking at >>>> community requirements and the RPC internal processes that deliver those." >>>> >>>> Jay >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jay Daley >>>> IETF Executive Director >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
