RE: I have heard this a few times now

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> > I we do get community consensus on this, then I would think it
> > might help/explain/motivate authors/editors/wg-chairs/reviewers
> > to HELP us all to get better quality in the beginning instead
> > of getting complaints about us (the IESG as a last resort) to
> > do so much pushback on PERCEIVED details.
> 
> It's very rare that I've seen a technical nits pushback be rejected with 
> "we shouldn't have to fix this" - the authors seem to want things to be 
> perfect, too. (Boilerplate and formatting nits are another matter, of 
> course).
> 

Well... some of those who complain a lot (take Mike StJohns for
example on my MIB review for his doc) do not even like the
"technical nits". I was NOT pleased with his "co-operation" 
to try to come to a good-quality PS. It is now in the hands
of Steve Bellovin as a result. It has caused delay for at 
least half a year or so.

Also... lately we have had a lot of admin nits
- fewer authors,
- referece splits
- Acronyms in title and doc
- no references in abstract
- ...

Oh well... come to think of it... a lot of these originated
from RFC-Editor, no?

Bert

>                  Harald
>