> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> > > On 04/05/2013 09:22, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > > GEN-ART is a good example, but actual document editing is much more work > > and arguably, less rewarding than a review. So I think this can only > > succeed with professional (=paid) editors. > > I think I disagree, if we can find the knack of effective crowd-sourcing. > We do after all have several hundred native English speakers active > in the IETF, which would mean each one would have to volunteer for > less than one draft per year and we'd be done. > > I don't know how much experience you have with professional editors. > Apart from the RFC Editor crew, my experience has been "mixed". Somebody > a year or three ago (the last time we had this exact same discussion) > pointed out the differences between copy-editors and technical editors. > One difference is that the latter are much more expensive. Copy-editors > tend to be rule-driven; technical editors are supposed to understand > the material. In a sense you're right; if we could find sufficient members who are good at editing technical English and motivate them to do so, then the problem would be solved. However, I don't see any of those conditions becoming true. As an organization, we don't place much value on making the *words* of a document clear and correct, and neither do our employers. And relatively few engineers can write high-quality English specifications. More subtly, our process works against us, because we use technical contributors as the document editors. Improving writing is a matter of zillions of relatively small changes, which is inefficient to do if the person weilding the pen isn't the person who is working out the corrections to the majority of the sentences in the document. Dale