Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
mankin-pub-req currently has requirements for both pre approval (Potential
Req-PREEDIT-1) and post approval (Req-POSTEDIT-1). We need to decide which
requirements stay and which ones go.
I think both requirements are needed, however each document should only have to
pass through either pre-approval editing or post-approval editing but not both.
This will allow the IETF to migrate to a methodology using pre-approval
editing over time. Usage of pre-approval editing should be encouraged.
What about cases where (e.g. due to major issues during IESG processing),
significant new text has appeared? I think we need the option of a post
approval edit pass in such cases, but it should be the exception.
In addition an additional requirement should be added along the lines of:
o Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-3 - The IETF technical publisher should have a goal
of an average time for completing the pre-approval editorial review of no more
than 2 weeks and at least 98% of all documents should be reviewed within 4
weeks. The review interval starts when the editorial review is requested and
ends when the review results are provided.
I'm leery of specifying the times here. I think we should make the requirement
that there *should* be target times, but leave the actual values to the RFP
process. These times can have a direct effect on cost, and I don't think
it's appropriate to fix them a priori. It would be OK to say
The IETF technical publisher should have a defined goal for the average time for
completing the pre-approval editorial review and for the 90th percentile.
Suggested target times are two and four weeks respectively.
Honestly, I think a 98th percentile target is unreasonable for this
kind of work. And these comments apply elsewhere in the draft too.
This is to prevent simply shifting the long queuing delay from the
post-approval phase to the pre-approval phase.
I would also propose that we add text prohibiting stylistic changes in the
post-approval editing (but permit it in pre-approval editing).
Yes, but even in pre-approval I see no reason why editing should change
the tone, for example by removing intentional informality.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
