>Nancy,
>
>>Cool. I think it's a great topic/issue, and I'm glad to have discussed it here. And gotten David's POV, as well.
>
>FWIW, I tend to lean toward John's interpretation of Technical Editor, based on what I have observed with computer-related books. I would expect as Technical Editor to handle much of what you designated as peer review -- much like a beta test, which really is a form of peer review, but with editing responsibilities added.

I don't disagree. I think that _is_ how it's actually worked in real life, but even if the person is a technical editor, they should understand what they are doing as TE and as reviewer. Just like we are expected to wear more than one hat. That's the only point I'm making.

Then we talk about how someone is doing on the TE side, and how they are doing on the review side...so that if there is a deficiency, it can be corrected.

I least, the way I'm reading it, we don't disagree, but I may not be expressing myself as clearly as I'd like to.