Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Thomas,
I may not be making myself clear enough here...
From: "Thomas Narten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for excessive changes at that stage, which *does* happen,
> the publisher needs to be able to say no.
... and get lost here. I'm fine with the AD saying "that change is
excessive for AUTH48" to authors, but having the technical publisher
tell the AD(s, or the IESG), "that change is excessive for AUTH48"
seems like a stretch.
excessive: you know it when you see it. Like when an l2tp document
asked for 278 editorial changes during AUTH48. (No, I'm not making
this up!)
Fully ACK on "excessive". My concern was about the technical publisher
being the one who "knows it when you see it" - Stephen's point that
saying "no" and saying "this is going to take a while" are probably very
similar regarding what happens next seems helpful here.
I'm OK with the technical publisher saying, "if you want us to make 278
changes, this is going to the bottom of the queue", or even, "please go
away and come back when you have a document that looks like text you
actually want to publish", but not saying, "no, we need to publish the
document without making the changes, because the number of AUTH48
changes are excessive".
And that's why I'm lost.
It's always going to be a judgement call, but I really don't see that
the publisher needs an AD's backup to Just Say No when a document that
has been approved by our consensus process and formally approved by
the IESG comes back with hundreds of changes. The authors simply don't
have the right to do that - it's a process violation.
Since it's a judgement call, it's appealable, so it can come back to
the AD anyway as an appeal.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
