I have been reviewing the text of the practice letter ballot draft
and putting comments into my ballot sheet. The organization
of the draft appears confusing. The draft is confusing in that it is
not clear where exactly the UMB-related text is located vs. the WB TDD. It
is also unclear how much WB FDD remains. I wonder if it makes more sense
for reviewers like myself to wait for a more-ready draft to review.
That would be a more efficient use of time and lead to a successful draft more quickly than a
comment process on a draft in the present
state.
I also
at the last meeting requested that detailed notation be made of all
changes in the new draft with respect to the previous
draft. The draft minutes record the following: "In response to
questions, the technical editor stated that he expected that there would be so
many changes in the document that redlining them would not be useful, but
perhaps unchanged sections could be so indicated." I was at least
one person who asked the
question. I have looked at the redline version. Per the
Editor's Note in the redline version, it appears that the redline version
gives the reader no assurance that all changes made are reflected in the redline
version. So, a good discussion
for the Working Group to have is how to communicate exactly
where all the changes to the previous draft have occurred to provide guidance to
those who review as well as the whole working group about how the draft has
changed.
Regards,
Victor
Hou