Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Techspec] Cutoff for post-approval corrections
At 4:37 PM -0600 3/7/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
My response to Eric's comments inline.
> S 3.7:
> o Potential Req-POSTCORR-3 - The IETF technical
publisher should
have the discretion to reject post-approval
corrections as too
late in the process and propose that it be handled
as errata.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Fundamentally, that seems like the
kind of discretion that should rest with the IESG. The publisher
can of course say "this will require reflowing the document" or
"this will delay the document X weeks" but up until the moment
of publication I'm not sure why IESG shouldn't be able to direct
changes.
Ultimately, the publisher should be at the command of the IESG.
I think that might be "pentultimately"; ultimately, isn't the
publishers at the command of IASA?
But this is analogous to the 11th hour appeal. If the document is
ready to be published, there will be a process in the publisher to
put it in the index and announce its availability. At what point
can the IESG say "Stop"? Maybe it's like the movies and stopping
the process is ok as long as they can rush in, throw themselves
across the room, and stop the publisher from hitting the "Enter" key.
Fully agree. But, in the movie scenario, if the publisher sees the
IESG collectively throw themselves across the room (well worth the
price of admission alone!), the publisher would take its finger off
the button. The wording of Req-POSTCORR-3 doesn't reflect that. A
more accurate wording might be:
o Potential Req-POSTCORR-3 - The IETF technical publisher should
have the discretion to publish the document as soon as all
the parties that must approve the final document have done so.
This allows the IESG can dramatically leap in at any point before
publication. Further, if the IESG wants the discretion to make
changes in the document, it might make itself one of the parties that
must approve the final document, most likely through one or more Area
Directors. That is already the case now for any WG document and
(possibly) any individual submission that has a sponsoring AD. The
IESG and IASA can figure out exactly what the rules should be here.
If this is the case, I'm not sure we need to keep this requirement at all. I think the
requirement captured in the reworded version is somewhat implied. The original idea was
whether or not to give the technical publisher the ability to say "sorry, too
late". If we don't want to give them that authority then we should just remove this
potential requirement all together.
Basically we need to be sure we keep the equivalent of AUTH48
where the authors and AD have a final look; but if they ask
for excessive changes at that stage, which *does* happen,
the publisher needs to be able to say no. On the other hand we
need the publisher to stop if someone on the technical side
finds a major problem at the last moment. Whether that makes
two requirements or one, I leave to Stephen.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
