'scuse front posting, but I'm going to outrageously summarise Pete's point as "I want substance in all Last Call comments", or alternatively "I will ignore +1 just as I will ignore -1". That isn't unreasonable, but personally I would interpret "I've read it and I think it's good work" as substantive, especially if it comes from a known expert. YMMV Regards Brian On 12/06/2013 08:31, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 6/11/13 3:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Pete, >> >> On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote: >> >>> It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want >>> more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to >>> send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're >>> voting. Details below. >>> >> Just to test what you are saying, let me ask the following. > > Oooo...I love a test. > >> How would you react to one that says something like: >> "I've read the draft, and I've considered Joe Blow's objection, but I >> still support publication of the draft" (*not" followed by a reasoned >> rebuttal of Joe Blow's argument)? >> > > I would be rather grumpy with such a message. If there's an outstanding > (reasonable) objection to a document, I need to know why to consider > that argument in the rough. I'd have to ask for more detail from the > sender. If the response I get back is, "I figured it was obvious why Joe > Blow was full of crap", I'd ask, "Then why did you bother posting?" If > the sender happens to be an expert (and Joe Blow is not), I'm still not > going to take it at face value that Joe Blow is wrong. If I did, Joe > would be well within rights to appeal because his argument got blown off. > > So, if you're saying something that is perfectly obvious, no need to say > it. But if it's not perfectly obvious, I do want more text. > > pr >