[blml] 'normal'

[Brian]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:38:18 -0000
<gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> >
> +=+ You are in error if you think the 2007 Laws were not proof
> read by appropriate eyes in plural locations and independent of the
> drafting subcommittee. 

Then I'm glad to hear it Grattan, because I was relying on an exchange
between us on BLML on 12th Feb 2006, where you stated 

<paste>

I think you underestimate the total resources 
of the drafting subcommittee. The final overview 
of language is, however, something that its Chairman 
has taken to himself. He is an honours graduate in 
English of one of the most distinguished English 
Universities.

</paste>

If you see "the final overview of language" as being different to
"proof reading", then that's the cause of the misunderstanding. 


> Not every step in the process is in the public
> domain.  

I would have said that not ANY might be nearer the mark. 

> The risk in offering opportunity to blml subscribers would
> have been that they would be inclined to involve themselves with
> principle rather than language, and this is not the proof reader's
> function.

Here I think the misunderstanding is yours. Let me paste the reply I
made to Eric Landau, in its entirety. 

<paste> 

As should have happened with the Laws themselves - but now I'll be
accused of doubting John Wignall's qualifications again, or possibly
some other member of the WBFLC. Final proof reads *have* to be
undertaken by someone uninvolved with the drafting. Those involved with
the drafting will have too great a tendency to read what they "know" is
there, rather than what's actually there. The excuse about the
potential to be swamped with comments from a wider consultation is pure
BS. If the will was there, a way of filtering out the rubbish and just
passing on the important points could easily be found. I'm sure an
appeal to the BLML readership would result in quite a number of
volunteers, for starters. 

</paste>

My suggestion of using volunteers from BLML pertained to the filtering
process if an excessive number of comments resulted from a wider
consultation. While I accept that I might have added a paragraph break
before "The excuse about", I still think the meaning is clear. However,
let's try to make it abundantly so...

I think the problems that might be caused by excessive responses to a
wider consultation on the new laws could be solved by setting up a form
of tiered set of mailing lists to filter those responses, and that the
membership of BLML would be a source of volunteers for reading those
lists. If that hasn't made it clear enough, I"ll be happy to send you
a thorough explanation of how this sort of scheme works off-list (it
would be from the world of programming rather than bridge
administration, but I don't believe that would make any significant
difference to the principle).  


Brian. 

--