Re: Alternative formats for IDs
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Alternative formats for IDs



Agree with EKR that such a two-stage author review SHOULD make sense, and if our median time in AUTH48 wasn't something like 10 days now[1], I'd be a lot more excited about adopting this and going through AUTH48 (or its nearest equivalent) twice ...

:-(

Spencer

[1] ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/IETFreports/2005/ietf64-report.pdf and http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/slides/plenaryw-2.pdf


Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu> writes:
It sounds like an awful waste of time and effort to me.

It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have
two stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of
copy-editing, and then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after
the final conversion.

It's worth mentioning that this is exactly how book publication works. Indeed, the copy-edit stage is often done on something with entirely different formatting from the final version (e.g., double-spaced). The proofreader is then responsible for ensuring that (1) Each proposed copy-edit change actually gets handled and (2) No superfluous changes are introduced in the typesetting/page layout stage. Then there's a final author approval of the galleys.

-Ekr



_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.