On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Dave Crocker wrote: > In the current case, the author has repeatedly failed to do that. > Instead, we are faced with the rest of us having to guess what changes > might pertain to our comments. You're not, actually; let me give you a link like I did Steve: https://github.com/vdukhovni/saag/commit/20379d90a2d3d781907d1d79c29c41e2112d0169 > This predecessor activity -- which comprises acknowledging points of > agreement and engaging in detailed, constructive dialogue about points > of disagreement -- has been almost completely absent from any phase of > this draft, except for the places in which the author (or you or the > shepherd) have rejected points or summarily declared them in the rough. I fear that the kind of dialogue you desire, on all the topics that have been raised, would require more hours than there are in a day. We're only human, and this isn't the only thing we're working on. > When someone from the community provides detailed comments, the > responsibility rests with the author to /engage/ in actual discussion > about them. Not ignore or summarily reject them. Does "I believe that the latest update of the draft accomodates all the comments that have been made" not qualify? Bear in mind the above comment about realistic time expectations. -Ben