Machine Translation

[Doug Ewell]

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> In your role as Reviewer, you should be entertaining several points of 
> view, allowing proponents for different options to make their case, 
> and waiting to see what consensus emerges before evaluating the 
> consensus of the list. The decisions should be the consensus of the 
> list, not yours alone.

Without commenting on matters of civility or of stifling discussion, the 
Reviewer -- the role, not Michael personally -- is expected to be an 
expert as well as a referee, much more than (say) a WG chair.  His or 
her opinion on technical merits does count more than yours or mine.

However, Peter is certainly correct that others on the list should have 
their opinions heard before a verdict is rendered.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s