Concrete example of editor/WG inefficiencies

[Pekka Savola]

Hi,

When helping Bert/Randy to review documents at the IESG through 
ops-dir, Bert stated that we should focus on major issues (while nits 
etc. would be OK as well, but whether they'd be fixed would be up to 
the authors etc.).  I hope I interpreted that well.

The reasons for this stance were (quoting Bert, with permission):

- some editors/authors seem to need long turnaround times for
  even the simplest changes
- when you let them make changes, the WG-chairs and ADs need to check
  that they made them correctly and did not sneak new stuff into
  the doc that we did not agree on
- some people use WORD to produce doc, then do manual editing to
  remove stupid word-side-effects and so often make stupid errors
  and so we end up wasting more cycles that needed.

.. I can see the problems here, but this really, really seems to be a 
huge process problem in other fronts: inefficient editors and chairs, 
the use of wrong tools if fixing a few nits is too difficult etc.

For every one of the three points above, you could continue ", but 
this is really a separate problem on its own, that is, XXXXX."

We adjust the work habits and quality to cope for low performance, and
expect the editors/WG-chairs/etc. to perform badly. Not sure whether
that's a good idea.

I think this should already be covered in the problem statement draft, 
but bringing up as an explicit example of a seemingly failing document 
improvement process.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings