bad english [Re: draft-iesg-charter-00.txt]

[Pekka Savola]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[...]
> Yes, the IESG has on occasion sent back documents for atrocious abuse of 
> the English language, and it's relatively routine to mention examples of 
> broken English when the document is sent back for other reasons; how can we 
> tell if the conclusion is right if we can't parse the sentence?
> But we don't do "English review" per se. Neither does the RFC Editor (much).

To chime in here..

IMO, having read and commented on hundreds on drafts, occasionally the
language in those is such abuse that it's difficult to read: a lot of time
is wasted on trying to concentrate and ask yourself "what on earth is
meant by this and this and this and ...".

IMO, such documents should never get as far as an AD.  If you can't write
easily understandable language, find a co-author or an editor.

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