Re: Out of the box proposal

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs at shinkuro.com>]

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 07:09:18PM +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> If the RFC editor will find these errors, then I suggest to move their
> review to an earlier stage and/or instruct the IESG to focus on the
> content, not editorial issues.

In my opinion, that is a form/content distinction that won't fly.
Sticky points of grammar and useage are, alas, not mere bangles
hanging on the prose.

When published, an RFC must meet two criteria:

     1.  It must be comprehensible to someone who wasn't around when
     the document was written.

     2.  It must actually express the consensus of the WG.

If you leave "editorial issues" to someone who doesn't understand the
content, then my experience tells me (2) will be violated: a
well-meaning copy editor will change the prose to make it "clearer"
and acidentally change the meaning in the process.  (I have now seen
as much happen so many times that it approaches the status of natural
law in my mind.)

The upshot is that, even though it is hard for engineers to do so, we
have to send to the IESG only those drafts with precise and clear
(even if not elegant) prose.  It is unfortunately hard work to produce
such prose.  But no amount of technique and process can relieve the WG
editors of that responsibility, because only the WG knows what it is
trying to say.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.