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

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:32 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

FWIW, I usually find it necessary to review both the diffs and the whole
document: the diffs to highlight what changes have been made in processing
and the whole document as a final sanity check. Indeed, I would find it
helpful to review multiple stages of diff that reflected different types of
transformation, such as (a) rfc styling (b) copy-edit, etc.

-Ekr

>     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
>