GEN-ART is a good example, but actual document editing is much more work
and arguably, less rewarding than a review. So I think this can only
succeed with professional (=paid) editors.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 05/02/2013 02:40 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
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
My experience is that unless the editors have some background in
protocols, this takes a surprising amount of effort, explaining it to
them and catching _their_ mistaken assumptions (which can be subtle).
However,
On 05/02/13 19:13, Peter Saint-Andre allegedly wrote:
Instead of imposing even more work on the RFC Editor team, I
suggest that you find someone in the WG, in your company, in the
IETF community (etc.) to help with the language issues.
... then you have quality control issues, uncertainty who to turn to,
finding someone who not only appears to be good but actually is, etc.
So how about a pool of volunteer editors, aka GEN-AET, with developed
reputations?