Eric, John,
Would having professional editors make a difference here?
I know it is controversial, but there is at least one other area in which we should be raising the bar for DS/IS by dropping the bar for Proposed. If we really want to get PS specs out quickly while the percentage of people who easily write very high quality technical English in the IETF continues to go down, we need to stop the behavior of various IESG members simulating technical editors or translators to "fix" PS text (or insisting that the author or WG do so, which, IMO, is less bad but still often a problem).
I think the existing Discuss criteria already says very clearly that editorial comments cannot be blocking DISCUSSes. I see a lot of language feedback from IESG and directorate reviews, but its rare to have them appear in the DISCUSSes. If they do, its inappropriate, you should push back. And I'm sure you will :-) Besides, we pay the RFC Editor a large amount of money every year to do the editing. Documents need to be clear enough to be understood, but the RFC editor can handle most of the editorial problems. (That being said, I've seen documents that were sent back because they really were not understandable. Obviously there is some bar under which you should not go, or the document cannot advance at all. This happens more in WG stages than in the IESG. But if you can't communicate your idea clearly then I think it should be up to you to hire co-workers/editors to help clarify your idea... not the IETF's problem, IMHO.) Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf