--On Thursday, 09 March, 2006 14:05 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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, I think this is exactly right, but I would add "or any
substantive ones" to the "hundred of changes" in your comment.
Unless we select a technical publisher who can, on an average
day, usually tell a substantive change from an editorial one, we
are going to be in serious trouble for other reasons. If the
editor detects such changes in an author's reply, the document
should be bounced and the author told that such changes require
AD signoff (at least).
john
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
