John C Klensin wrote:
> Exactly.
>
> Where Dave and I disagree, I think, is that I consider getting
> from "technically correct and coherent but not in English that
> is acceptable to non-native speakers who primary language also
> differs from that of the author/editor" to be a community
> responsibility, while Dave considers it a WG (or other advocacy
> group) one... At least I hope I have that right.
Sounds correct to me.
> That work is arguably best done by professionals because it
> requires considerable skill; skill that improves with experience.
It certainly requires skill. However it does not require some sort of formal
certification and job title. The skill is available from many sources.
> There are several reasons I want to see it handled as a
> community responsibility rather than as a WG one, but the most
> important is that, if people have to be hired to do the work, I
> don't want to see our working groups turn into mini-consortia
> with their own budgets, funding sources, hired editors, etc.
You are vastly too late for that, from a practical standpoint.
The reality is that virtually all IETF efforts that succeed, these days, come
from some sort of organized industry effort. Whether that organization is
formal is irrelevant.
In any event, "industry" is already spending quite a bit to get the technical
work done, for any given specification. In that context, the incremental cost
of the editing work is negligibility -- within the context of that single effort.
Meta-point:
The resistance to pushing meaningful responsibility to the groups supposed
to do the work -- and enforcing that they do it well -- continues to strike me
as quite dissonant with the community's claimed goals, both long-standing and
recent.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf