>> > > A full review should not be necessary. >> > >> > I wish that were true... >> >> IMO a full review is necessary, >> > My opinion is different. If I followed your approach, a lot of documents would have been delayed and probably abandoned. The crucial observation is that different authors have different priorities here. That is very much OK. The responsible AD is part of the process to check that it doesn’t derail too much. > I've been involved as author/editor for a number of multi-hundred-page documents. The results were not perfect but the documents were improvements over the documents they replaced and that is enough for me. The perfect is the enemy of the good… > should Did I talk about process confabulation yet today? I think we are still responsible for the outcomes, even if not everybody else keeps every SHOULD (or MUST). But that doesn’t mean the result MUST be perfect. Grüße, Carsten
