Agree with EKR that such a two-stage author review SHOULD make sense, and if
our median time in AUTH48 wasn't something like 10 days now[1], I'd be a lot
more excited about adopting this and going through AUTH48 (or its nearest
equivalent) twice ...
:-(
Spencer
[1] ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/IETFreports/2005/ietf64-report.pdf and
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/slides/plenaryw-2.pdf
Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu> writes:
It sounds like an awful waste of time and effort to me.
It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have
two stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of
copy-editing, and then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after
the final conversion.
It's worth mentioning that this is exactly how book publication
works. Indeed, the copy-edit stage is often done on something
with entirely different formatting from the final version
(e.g., double-spaced). The proofreader is then responsible
for ensuring that (1) Each proposed copy-edit change actually
gets handled and (2) No superfluous changes are introduced
in the typesetting/page layout stage. Then there's a final
author approval of the galleys.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf