Re: Alternative formats for IDs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]