[CRISP-TEAM] Timeline, and incorporating Bill's edits submission
Bill Woodcock
woody at pch.net
Wed Jan 14 14:27:44 CET 2015
Yes, also aware that I've had less than six hours of sleep since Sunday, and if I don't take this opportunity for another two, I'm not going to be able to do a useful job of what needs to be done.
To do a good job and not thrash, I or whoever does the final edit need you on the call to come up with firm consensus on the questions I've raised, so the work can be done and not second-guessed after.
Doesn't matter if it's me that does it, but it needs to be a native English speaker with editorial experience, and answers to those questions need to be nailed down before the final edit starts.
And you should assume that the final edit will take eight hours or so. Roughly.
-Bill
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:16, "Nurani Nimpuno" <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Are you aware that we are currently all in the CRISP teleconference discussing the current state of things?
>
> Nurani
>
>> On 14 jan 2015, at 13:57, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm willing to do it again, but I can't afford to blow another whole day implementing people's edits if they're going to change their minds again when they see them implemented. We don't have an extra day to waste at this point.
>>
>> So, please be explicit about what changes you want to see implemented, and I'll do them, but be aware that there is no longer time for another go-around. We need to be sure this time. Because this last time needs to include all of the final copyediting, pagination, etc.
>>
>> It's 5am here, I'll be back up and able to start working again in four hours. Please try to have final decisions queued up for me to implement at that point, if you can. The three big ones that aren't obvious to me are whether people want to roll back the "RIR community" one for some reason (I strongly recommend against doing so); whether we go with the "Numbering Services" language (which I've discussed the pros and cons of elsewhere); and whether we use integer or wacky section numbering (as you know, I'm in favor of integers). So please try to at least give me concrete decisions on those.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 4:40, "Paul Rendek" <rendek at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey ,
>>>
>>> I agree, I like the work Bill has done. I wonder if we can turn the tap
>>> on with the latest version. But I would like to see the version control
>>> turned on when he does his magic.
>>>
>>> I agree, we can hash this out on the call.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/15 12:13 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>>> Thank you Alan for explicitly bring this up. It's an important point to
>>>> cover. What you proposed makese sense to me generally and would like to
>>>> understand whether an extra step needs to be added in the timeline to
>>>> incorporate Bill's suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> If this is the case, then we need to shortern the time for each phase.
>>>>
>>>> I also would like to confirm with Bill whether he is willing to do this
>>>> again for the udated draft as I understand it has taken quite some time
>>>> for Bill with many places to update, while not intended to be
>>>> substantive changes.
>>>>
>>>> If it could be done without confusion, an alternativeI can think of is
>>>> to have redline of Michael and Bill's vesions, review within the CRISP
>>>> Team and incorporate the changes unless disagreed.
>>>>
>>>> Let's discuss at the coming call what works the best without confusion
>>>> in pragematic way.
>>>>
>>>> Izumi
>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015/01/14 20:17, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>>>>> I would like to have your feedback on a draft timeline of our work
>>>>>> before we submit the final proposal to the ICG.
>>>>> How will we incorporate Bill's copy-editing work? My proposal follows.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would hope that we can agree on all substantive changes during the
>>>>> call today, and then perhaps Michael can produce a document that
>>>>> includes all those changes, and share it with all of us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next, I hope that Bill can update his copy-edited document to include
>>>>> all the recent changes made to Michael's document, and share that with us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I hope that we can review Bill's document and approve the final
>>>>> version at tomorrow's meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me try to explain that again, with the aid of this diagram (please
>>>>> view in a fixed-width font):
>>>>>
>>>>> ] A: Second draft, published on 9 Jan 2015
>>>>> ] :
>>>>> ] :
>>>>> ] B: CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft 12012015-mraredline.docx
>>>>> ] prepared by Michael, with changes from several people
>>>>> ] : :
>>>>> ] : :
>>>>> ] : C: CRISP Team Proposal-BW3.doc
>>>>> ] : with Bill's copy-editing changes
>>>>> ] : :
>>>>> ] D: current work in progress, :
>>>>> ] being collected by Michael :
>>>>> ] : :
>>>>> ] : :
>>>>> ] E: New draft to be produced by Michael :
>>>>> ] soon after the call on Wed 14 Jan 2015 :
>>>>> ] : :
>>>>> ] : ..................
>>>>> ] : :
>>>>> ] F: New draft to be produced (by who?)
>>>>> ] incorporating both the agreed changes from B->D->E
>>>>> ] and the copy-editing changes from B->C
>>>>> ] :
>>>>> ] :
>>>>> ] G: Final version to be sent to ICG
>>>>>
>>>>> Between Monday's call and Tuesday's call, Alan Barrett, Michael
>>>>> Abejuela, and Bill Wodcock, worked on incorporating suggestions from
>>>>> several people, and copy-editing. Bill did most of the copy-editing.
>>>>> The results were two documents, labeled "B" and "C" above. "B" includes
>>>>> edits performed by Alan Barrett and Michael Abejuela, incoprorating
>>>>> suggestions from several sources. Document "C" was based on "B", and
>>>>> includes edits by Bill Woodcock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the changes from "B" to "C" were Bill's copy-editing. Some
>>>>> changes might have been in response to suggestions from others (I am not
>>>>> sure).
>>>>>
>>>>> During yesterday's call, people were uncomfortable adopting the document
>>>>> produced by Bill (labeled "C" above), so I suggested going back to the
>>>>> document labeled "B" above, which incorporates editorial changes from
>>>>> many people, and substantive changes from Paul Wilson.
>>>>>
>>>>> Over the past 20 hours or so, we have been discussing changes relative
>>>>> to document "B", so we are at the point labeled "D" in my diagram.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that we can produce document "E" soon after the call today
>>>>> (Wednesday 14 Jan).
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not want to lose the changes that Bill made between "B" and "C", so
>>>>> I think we should produce a new document "F" that includes all the
>>>>> changes from B to D to E (being collected by Michael, and to be approved
>>>>> at or soon after today's call), and all the changes from B to C
>>>>> (copy-editing by Bill), plus whatever small changes are necessary to
>>>>> resolve conflicts between the two lines of edits.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that we can approve document "F" during tomorrow's call (Thu 15
>>>>> Jan), and make minimal changes after tomorrow's call before sending the
>>>>> final version "G" to the ICG.
>>>>>
>>>>> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
More information about the CRISP
mailing list