[CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions

[Alan Barrett]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>> 1) Produce version with editorial changes
>>
>> 2) Produce version with substantial changes
>
> Understood.  Alan and Michael, I believe our five steps should 
> be to (1) fix with certainty what base document we’re working 
> from, (2) compile all of the applicable edits, (3) apply those 
> edits, (4) copyedit the result for grammar, punctuation, 
> etc., and (5) return the edited draft to the list.

For (1) "what base document", let's work from the document sent by
Michael with these email headers:

    From: Michael Abejuela <mabejuela at arin.net>
    To: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
    CC: "crisp at nro.net" <crisp at nro.net>
    Subject: Re: CRISP TEAM - Clean version docx
    Thread-Topic: CRISP TEAM - Clean version docx
    Thread-Index: AQHQLmuMiF9rbpwJTEyBymcfQdsS4Jy81feA//+2q4A=
    Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:33:33 +0000
    Message-ID: <D0D944CE.98C20%mabejuela at arin.net>

The file name of the attachment in that message is "CRISP IANA 
PROPOSAL Draft 08012015-clean-updated-1530UTC.docx" but there 
has been more than one file with that name (differing only in 
metadata, as far as I am aware).

> What is our timeframe for accomplishing these five steps?
>
> I’m in the ARIN board meeting right now (until 21:30 UTC), and 
> on an airplane after that (23:00 UTC until 08:00 UTC tomorrow).  
> If Alan and Michael can nail down (1) and as much of (2) as 
> possible by 22:30 UTC, I can put in at least four hours of 
> dedicated work on (2) through (4) before 08:00 UTC, and suggest 
> that we could have finished (4) and (5) by 20:00 UTC Wednesday.

For (2) "compile all of the applicable edits", let's each work 
on a separate copy of the document and a separate set of edits.  
I'll do the edits that I suggested myself, and changes from "NRO 
EC" to "RIRs" where appropriate.  Bill will not be available, but 
perhaps Michael can work on edits suggested by others.  I'll send 
my "track changes" document to Michael by 22:00 UTC today (6 hours 
from now).  That will be midnight in my time zone, and I won't be 
much use after that time.

For (3) "apply those edits", I hope Michael can combine all the 
edits and share the result by 23:00 UTC today.

For (4) "copyedit", Bill can work on it (and any other editorial 
changes we may have missed) after 23:00 UTC.

(5) "return the edited draft to the list" as soon as Bill is ready, I
suppose.

> Is that sufficient?  Or should we put off (4) until substantive 
> edits are applied, and try to borrow ourselves ten or twelve 
> hours now?

We probably need two copyediting rounds, one after applying editorial
changes, and another after substantive changes are made.

--apb (Alan Barrett)