Dear Martin Rongen and coauthors,

we now received two reviews for your manuscript. Both are positive with constructive criticism. Subject to minor revision I can therefore further consider your manuscript for publication. Please prepare a revision in which you address all points raised by the reviewers.

Best Regards,
Olaf Eisen
Co-Editor in Chief

Dear Martin & coauthors,

thank you for your revision, in which you addressed most of the criticism raised by the reviewers. In the attached pdf I made a number of small corrections which I ask you to incoporate. One point I would ask you to clarify is the comment and your respond on
page C5 by Jan Eichler: "p.10 l.10-16: I also wonder what would ..."
In principle this is correct, with a few constrains. I would appreciate if you would elaborate on this a little bit further on this in the manuscript (although you don't have to go into the details of fabric/grain development, which are not the main focus in your manuscript):
- For a girdle, the connection of mean grain elongation to be perpendicular to fabric has been described early, I think Gow. Could you add a reference? This is only true, to my understanding, for the right ratio of deformation and recrystallization, e.g. fast and/or cold.
- "assumed to be an ellipsoid" To you have any reference/data to this?

At some point you mention "water filled borehole". I guess that is a typo for SP?

Please provide a reference for your azimuth (i.e. where is 0° pointing to?) - I did not see that defined.

Are the data available for others, according to TC guidelines, e.g. in a data repository?

After incorporation and/or response to my suggested changes I can consider your manuscript for publication in TC.

Best Regards,
Olaf

Dear Martin, Ryan and Summer,

thank your for the replies, which clarified some issues. I’m aware that the holes at SP (south pole) were drilled with hot water, but I would ask you to add a few words, e.g. „in the water-filled boreholes (from hot water drilling before refreezing after 2-3 days).

Please add the private communication as such (e.g. NAME, personal communication, 2019). Then it is obvious where the info is coming from.

Data repository: it is not a requirement, but it is greatly appreciated in the context of open science and the guidelines to make your data set publicly available. Moreover, data sets (citations, downloads) are becoming another metrics for science evaluation, so it is an opportunity for you, too.

I’m happy to accept your manuscript for publication in TC subject to the addition of the above small changes.

Regards,
Olaf