--On Tuesday, 12 March, 2013 16:21 -0400 Marc Blanchet
<marc.blanchet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Marc,
I wasn't worried about "second class" in the way I think you
mean it above, but about a few other things:
(1) We often don't have a big surplus of people wanting to be
document authors/editors and having the needed skills. Having
to say "you can't work on this document unless we find someone
to work with you who will be the _real_ author of the English
text" is problematic in that it "uses up" two people, one of
whom presumably could have done the work by herself.
(2) In something analogous to the many "teach a man to fish"
stories, I'd like to be sure we focus on supporting and
improving on whatever skills are there rather than on
ghostwriters and making those skills less necessary. We aren't
helping people gain the skills and experience they need to
assume leadership roles around here nearly quickly enough. We
aren't helping people gain the skills and experience they need
to be document editors and authors nearly quickly enough either.
And, fwiw, those of us who are first-generation wrt Internet
technology are starting to get _really_ old.
Part of the problem is that we talk about "can't easily write
good technical English" as if it is binary between "can" and
"cannot" or a sharp line. Many of us need help (as anyone who
has read my sentences and typographical errors when I start
writing quickly knows), but the kinds of help we need are such
that there is not "one size fits all" solution and never will be.
I still think that pairing people as editors is a great idea in
many cases, even though I've tried it will only mixed success.
But I wouldn't want it to turn into a rule or requirement.
best,
john