Subject: [edu-discuss] Outline of the editor's training

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:03:07 +0900

Hi,

I have been working on a presentation for editor's training.  This is 
still just an outline, but I would be interested in comments and 
recommendations for additions.  For the most part, each bullet 
represent a future slide.

thanks
a.

psg.com/~avri/edu/editor-intro-1.pdf

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:18:49 -0400 (EDT)

> psg.com/~avri/edu/editor-intro-1.pdf

some notes

slide 5
	are you asking these questions of us?
	the next to last question is a superset of the 1st 3

	my answers
		no (WG decides)
		no (WG chair decises)
		mostly
		not much
		yes (I've been involved in doing so)

slide 6
	should also point to
	http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html

slide 7
	2nd bullet
	note that WG sessions are short and not conducive to 
	much real-time editing

Scott

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:03:10 +0900

As I mentioned in the note, I thought of these as broader questions

> 	are you asking these questions of us?

Not specifically, but answers are always welcome.

> 	the next to last question is a superset of the 1st 3

I do not think the answers are as cut and dried as you suggest and that 
there is more content that can be conveyed in a discussion.

> 		no (WG decides)

Ultimately of course, the WG decides on content, yet the editor must 
make certain decisions along the way.  and though these decision are 
only provisional, they are decisions that need to be made.  The point I 
want to convey is that the editor is not a passive scribe who waits for 
the WG to tell him or her what to write.  The editor decides what to 
write based on best information and then must be ready to change 
because the WG ultimately decides.

> 		no (WG chair decises)

Yes, but the editor has a strong role in recommending and participating 
in the deliberations before the Chair makes a LC decision.  So while 
the answer is clear, there is more to the process then a simple no 
indicates.

> 		mostly

No necessarily.  We spend a lot of time arguing over words.  Both in 
the IETF political/process documentation and in the technical 
specifications.  I have often seen editors bristle when the WG did not 
accept the words used or the way a phrase is structured.  So it varies. 
  Certainly the editor gets to choose stylist wording choices include 
which of english variant she or he wishes to use.

> 		not much

Essentially, yeah, but still something worth exploring.

> 		yes (I've been involved in doing so)

Yes, though if I remember correctly is an appealable action by the WG 
or its participants.

> 	http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html

thanks.  will add that under the surviving nit patrol section.

> 	note that WG sessions are short and not conducive to

True that is more an artifact of the past.  yet, it does occur on some 
critical sections of a document that are under discussion.

Thanks
a.

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:32:41 -0400 (EDT)

> represent a future slide.

One suggestion:  for help on the formatting tools (Tools slide) you
could refer to the RFC editor's info on "Formatting RFCs and Internet
Drafts:"

	http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html