As a non-native English speaker, but a language pedant nonetheless, I
can empathize with people who put Discusses on badly written documents.
I suggest that we budget for a number of WG drafts per year (say, 20
IETF-wide) to go through professional, paid-for heavy-duty editing, with
these goals in mind:
- Improve the readability of some of published documents, because if a
document is *really* badly written, even the RFC Editor team will not
save it.
- Improve the level of review, because people can understand the
document better if they don't need to dig through incorrect or "strange"
language.
- Allow more non-native speakers to participate in our primary activity
(back to our "diversity" discussion).
I would suggest that the editing step should take place just before WG
Last Call, upon a request by a WG chair and with AD approval.
Thanks,
Yaron
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 21:14:39 +0300
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes(_dot_)tschofenig(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>, IETF list
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process
Message-ID: <5182AD0F(_dot_)4010204(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
[...]
PS: I just want to add that I still dislike DISCUSSes that make me
re-write documents just because an English native speaker believes
(probably rightfully so) that he knows how to write the text better (or
at least in a different way). (hint, hint)