mark.davis at icu-project.org
Fri May 23 16:29:28 CEST 2008
I guess I'm used to a mode of operation where people in the wg actually
discuss the issues, and there is consensus to make changes or not.
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>
> On 23 maj 2008, at 03.32, Mark Davis wrote:
> I had a number of comments posted some time ago on each of the documents;
>> the best of my knowledge you didn't respond on them. It sounds like you
>> me (and others like me) to go back and review each new version to see
>> have been addressed and which haven't, and revise my comments accordingly.
>> It would be more effective to respond on the list with commentary as to
>> you did or didn't incorporate responses to the comments made.
> That is not easy as not only you make comments on the document. What is
> changed in the document is what I as an editor see as consensus on this
> mailing list (and what reaches me privately in email, on the phone etc).
> Given the conclusions I draw from _all_ comments, I update the document
> To then go back to each one of the people that have come with comments and
> write for each one of them exactly what part of their comments I think this
> or that on is something that take more time than what I think we have in the
> It is much better if reviewers do exactly what you propose. That you have a
> list of issues, you for each new version of the document do a diff, and
> check not only what comments are taken care of (that you then remove from
> your list), what issues are still valid, and what new issues have arised.
> And then post to the list again.
> That makes my life much simpler, and makes the work in the wg easier and
> more smooth.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update