On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:56 PM, ROGER MILLS <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On the general subject of editing-- I don't think ANY authorial errors
>  (including egregious mis-spellings and bad grammar, html boo-boos or even
>  ovbious typos, not to mention content) should be corrected without notifying
>  the author and obtaining consent, or allowing him/her to make the
>  corrections herm-self.

Then you could indicate this is your preference.

I'm just trying to point out that this preference varies, and we
shouldn't try to treat everyone as if it didn't - that way some people
(like perhaps you) will feel infringed upon by even modest edits,
whereas others might want that kind of help or for that matter even
more in-depth direct collaboration - vocab creation, discussion about
how well it meets its goals, alternate ways to implement something,

Personally, I fall in-between - for my projects (eg NLF2DWS), I want
to be able to control the most core idea, but beyond that I very much
enjoy and appreciate all feedback I get. Sometimes that feedback is
about something that's not quite what *I'm* doing - which is fine, of
course, and still inspirational, just not exactly enough on topic. And
sometimes it's not at all the way I had in mind of doing something,
but turns out to be much better than what I was thinking of.

In any case, we should have a way for people to *state* their
preferences and have them respected, and have a reasonable default
that represents the majority and is easily changed. That way no
assumptions need be made.

- Sai