David, On 04-Mar-22 01:08, David Noveck wrote: ...
The safe thing is to limit changes after consensus to those that do not require such extensive review by the authors who may, as someone pointed out, have lost the necessary context.
This is a bit of a strawman, but it is entirely possible that an editor could resolve an ambiguous sentence in a way that effectively changes the meaning of the whole document; for example, changing a terminology definition that is used throughout the text. We can't avoid this by issuing meaningless instructions to the editor like "don't change anything that matters". How we resolve it today is by the editor writing to the authors at AUTH48 time in terms like: 4) <!-- [rfced] We're having difficulty parsing the following sentence in Section 1. Original: The foo operation includes deleting active state bars. Perhaps: The foo operation consists of deleting all bars that are in the 'active' state. --> Only someone who understands the whole scenario can determine whether the second version is a clarification or a change of intent. Whatever the tooling for AUTH48, this sort of edit must be reviewed by a subject matter expert. Brian
