Subject: Re: [Techspec] Cutoff for post-approval corrections

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:17:37 -0600

Hi, Thomas,

I may not be making myself clear enough here...

From: "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]>

>> > 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.

Spencer 

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:05:13 +0100

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:11:13 -0500

> regarding what happens next seems helpful here.

OK. I think the end-of-the day requirement here is publisher can say
"that's an awful lot of changes, it will cost you in terms of
priority/delay/etc., do you really want us to do that?", with the
ADs/IESG having the final say if it comes to that.

In practice, I would expect the above would lead to a discussion in
which it is decided how to balance the needs (i.e., just publish w/o
changes vs., yep they are important enough they need to get done.),
since the discussion will inevitably balance a number of issues that
only the IETF can properly weigh.

Thomas

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:48:47 -0500

--On Thursday, 09 March, 2006 14:05 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> 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.
> 

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:46:55 +0100

> should be bounced and the author told that such changes require

Agreed.

     Brian