From 08ee59c749f72d3ee3ac8140b5b4f85093690e1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Moore Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:55:36 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fix spelling --- rfc/1/review_3.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rfc/1/review_3.md b/rfc/1/review_3.md index 8c28eaea..f3a3c7c5 100644 --- a/rfc/1/review_3.md +++ b/rfc/1/review_3.md @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Developing sharing specifications, like any large scale shared endeavour, necess ## Minor comments and questions -* During the RFC process, “Reviewers responses should be returned in less than two weeks.” I think this means the reponses by the authors to the reviewers? Phrasing is unclear. +* During the RFC process, “Reviewers responses should be returned in less than two weeks.” I think this means the responses by the authors to the reviewers? Phrasing is unclear. * The role of **Commenters** is a little unclear to me at present. In the definition, they are “invited to add their voice” - is this intended to be an active (e.g. authors/editors ask them) or passive process? * In the figure “RFC persists” indicates that the RFC, although not adopted, remains part of the record of communal work on the specification, but “persists” suggests that it remains in an active process somehow which I do not think is the case. * The figure legend suggests that start/end states should have identifiers, this isn’t currently the case for end states.