On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
In the current case, the author has repeatedly failed to do that.
Instead, we are faced with the rest of us having to guess what changes
might pertain to our comments.
You're not, actually; let me give you a link like I did Steve:
https://github.com/vdukhovni/saag/commit/20379d90a2d3d781907d1d79c29c41e2112d0169
This predecessor activity -- which comprises acknowledging points of
agreement and engaging in detailed, constructive dialogue about points
of disagreement -- has been almost completely absent from any phase of
this draft, except for the places in which the author (or you or the
shepherd) have rejected points or summarily declared them in the rough.
I fear that the kind of dialogue you desire, on all the topics that have
been raised, would require more hours than there are in a day. We're only
human, and this isn't the only thing we're working on.
When someone from the community provides detailed comments, the
responsibility rests with the author to /engage/ in actual discussion
about them. Not ignore or summarily reject them.
Does "I believe that the latest update of the draft accomodates all the
comments that have been made" not qualify? Bear in mind the above comment
about realistic time expectations.
-Ben