[CWG-Stewardship] Nits Re: For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2

[Andrew Sullivan]

NITS

I note that there remains a number of areas where formatting is
troublesome.  The paragraph numbering itself has, alas, made this
appear even worse, because instead of it having been applied in a
different font or clearly marked off or something, it appears to be
running numbering.  This isn't a criticism of the staff (though it is
a criticism of Word, which seems to me to be the wrong tool for every
job), but it'll need to be fixed for the final version.  There are
several places where it unfortunately obscures meaning (e.g. section
I.A number 9 is I think a header that ought to cover what's #10 in the
version before me, for instance).

II.A.i.24 says "static document (RFCs are updated by the issuance of a
new RFC) there have been two significant…".  I suspect a new sentence
starts at "there".

II.B.55 says "One of the official accountability mechanism…"
"mechanisms" for number agreement.

IV.B.189 [include ref] (need to fill reference)

V.B.212  There's a note here "This needs to be settled for final proposal", but I don't understand it.

Annx F.290 "…that had submitted expressions."  I think a word got chopped.  (I'm giggling thinking of someone submitting pictures of various frowny faces and so on.  Clearly, I've been reading this too long.)

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com