I don't think anyone is trying to destroy the publication process. The idea is to try to speed up the process. This is one idea.
During the session at IETF#65, two principles came across (at least two me). 1. We shouldn't use requirements as a vehicle to micro-manage the publication process 2. We should keep the processes simple. Do we need additional process flows if we can get the overall average queue duration down to 4 weeks? I think that if documents are in good shape and fairly simple, the publisher should be able to get them out the queue rapidly. We have no FIFO requirement in processing. So if the performance metric chosen is reasonable (say an average value), then it is in the publisher's interest to get easy documents out quickly. I'm not sure we need an additional requirement to drive this behaviour. To me it is micromanagement. Specifying blocks of text as protected is a different story. If experts have spent two months carefully crafting a paragraph, I would not like to see it inadvertently disturbed, even if the grammar is bad. I don't see a problem saying that the IETF can flag parts of the text as "leave alone". My understanding is that this is something the IESG does now. Stephen Hayes > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Braden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:36 AM > To: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Techspec] IETF steering of publisher editing > > > > Brian, > > There is something I just don't get. Why do you personally wish to > deliberately shun a publication process that is (1) working very well > for nearly everyone, and (2) producing better quality standards > documents than would be possible without this process? Why > do you want poor quality documents? > > Bob Braden, speaking for himself. > > > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
