[rfc-i] AUTH48 workflow [was [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program]

On 02-Apr-20 16:14, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I think what I'm calling the "AUTH48" problem was greatly exacerbated by the format switch, making the normal publishing process of reviewing "galley proofs" to be too onerous for those familiar with the material vs. the RFC Editor who has enough to worry about without knowing what might or might not be significant elements of typography, spacing, emphasis in formats that the author didn't even review (text, html, pdf)
> 
> IMHO, the "real problem" from a publishing workflow point of view  is that there is a workflow task that is not explicitly assigned, namely to validate that the to-be-published RFC, in all its published formats, reflects the intent of the author and the body that approved it.

That's *exactly* the purpose of AUTH48, and that's why AUTH48 sometimes lasts much longer than 48 hours. In my experience, ADs and WG chairs are often involved in discussion of whether certain changes are editorial or substantive.

I have no experience of AUTH48 for the v3 format, but I find reviewing v3 HTML documents much easier than txt. (For only reviewing diffs, txt remains better. But at AUTH48 one is explcitly asked to review the whole document.)

In any case, I am sure this is off topic for the rfced-future list, so I switched lists.

    Brian
> 
> It's easy to imagine the results would be a lot of unmet expectation and finger pointing, and arguments about what the "real problem" was.
> --
> https://LarryMasinter.net
> 
>   
> 
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest