the biggest change: I think the anti-marketista line of argument spreads too wide over the document. It seems to be the focus of not just the first but all chapters, with some loose switching between criticism of ideological advocacy from the Green Paper and our own advocacy of alternatives. These alternatives are often in a dualistic contrast with freemarketism, whereas one could argue f.e. showcasing that markets being determined by conditions which include policy choices, including doing nothing.
I think this may be an important point, but it also the criticism has to be made, and sometimes it is less effective to say it once earler in a paragraph, than to suggest examples as you go along. I realize your point, DoDo, that it makes it sound too criticism of ideology foccused, but it is also legitimate...they do it in their origninal document.
To completely edit out the "criticism" it would also require some heavy editing (and a lot of time and effort, I would think)...and I don't think anyone who has done heavy lifting on this in the last two days should try that. So unless someone is into a pot of coffee...
The other option is to add a brief preface that acknowledges the quandry of trying to respond to a paper technicaly when it is full of ideology, and say we are forced to point out the inconsistences, even as we try to respond to the questions of the paper. Then it is maybe just a question of saying "here's one of those points, but anyway...", rather tahn having to do a whole re-write late at night, with time pressure on.
To me, it is readable, gives important views/information, and makes the point. Perhaps different formatting, as Nomad suggested (chapters) might be more effective too...but again, can that be done reasonably simply, or are we talking about heavy changes?
My opinion is that we view this as a learning process, in that we can be aware of these issues that we have identified with upcoming papers (since they will probably have the same or similar problems)...and really focus on putting this paper to bed.
My ten cents worth...but it could save some time... "Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
The most important capabilities are: any edits must be side by side with the original for fast comparison, editors must be identified, and the text of each version is numbered using autonumbering for each stacked level of headlines, subs, paras and subparas . and bullet points etc.
With the latter it is much faster to locate the text commented upon, using the number. It helps to track any shifts in text order also.
I only know commercial software that does these things (and much more) for this purpose. But I am sure there is an Open Source version of it out there. You can't be me, I'm taken
But this process assumes that one or more members of the approval group have exclusive editing rights. Only commentary is allowed if you don't have edit rights. The document can be locked in different ways.
But comments can be quite long - people often paste whole paras that they've rewritten into comments - and that makes it easier for the editor too - copypaste.
This process is perfect also for visuals and layouts. Pointing a comment at exactly what you are commenting is much easier than explaining in words to what you are referring. You can do this in Photoshop too but the files get so damn big, and people get itchy about interfering physically in the layout without competence. So a pdf is more secure. You can't be me, I'm taken
