Oh, I forgot: NOW TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER !! :D On 3/12/13 5:48 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > I wasn't offended either, but I can see how some people might have felt. > > Moving on, what I do believe is that many i-d's could benefit from a > review by a linguist. > > This role, IMO, is different from the role of an editor. The linguist > doesn't need to have any technical background. He is more like a syntax > / semantic verifier. It's common practice in other fields. > > I know this idea raises a host of issues, like for example that it will > probably cost the IETF money, and that it's unfeasible to linguist-check > every single i-d. But maybe a reasonable compromise can be found. > > Like the Gen-ART review, maybe the WG chairs or the Gen-ART reviewers > themselves could flag some document for 'Linguist-Review', and have them > second checked by an appropriate linguist. > > Whether the original authors were native English speakers or not would > be immaterial, the document would be flagged when an otherwise sound > document suffers from language issues that could hinder implementation. > > Apologies for the unorganized email, the idea took form as I was > responding to John's original email. > > Warm regards, > > ~Carlos (married to a picky linguist) > > On 3/12/13 4:21 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >> Le 2013-03-12 à 14:45, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> a écrit : >> >>> Hi >>> >>> At last night's plenary, I raised some related issues about the >>> difficulties posed by the interactions between current systems >>> for developing and editing documents working groups through the >>> approval and publication processes and the growing number of >>> people in the community who do sound technical work but who >>> cannot express themselves easily and well in clear technical >>> English. In one of those comments, I suggested that the issues >>> were likely to continue to get more important as the IETF >>> diversified to including participants from areas we haven't seen >>> before and mentioned likely increased numbers of participants >>> from Mars. My intent was to abstract the problem as much as >>> possible to avoid even the appearance of singling out any one >>> country or region as the source of the issue. I don't believe >>> that is the case and have observed (and did last night) that we >>> have first-language speakers of English who write good and bad >>> technical English as well as many first-language speakers of >>> other languages who write better technical English than the >>> native-speaker average. >>> >>> In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought >>> I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. >> >> I was not offended, but I was in strong disagreement with your second comment that by having a co-editor assigned to help, it would make these "Martians" second-class citizens in the IETF. I completly disagree. Everybody needs help, for improving whatever: technical, writing, QA, etc... That does not make someone a second-class citizen. >> >> Closing and moving forward. >> >> Marc. >> >>> No >>> offense was intended and I used the "Martian" terminology >>> precisely to avoid that possibility. I obviously failed and >>> apologize to anyone who didn't hear or understand what I was >>> trying to say in the way I intended to say it. I'll try to >>> watch my choice of vocabulary even more in the future. >>> >>> john >>