My line of thinking was along the lines of what Ellis and Stroustrup did in The Annotated C++ Language Reference Manual[1]. It often helps to have a human being explain what some things mean through the use of examples or extra text. A crisp legal-ish statement of the rule followed by some explanatory text would be most helpful, and friendlier for new people to get their heads around.
-Joan [1] http://www.stroustrup.com/arm.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 5:13:06 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project by-laws It does seem justified though, it’s obviously to make it easy to refer unambiguously to a particular item, that doesn’t mean to say we can’t render it better than this. I would rather not have a document that states everything twice if we can avoid it. B. On 28 Apr 2014, at 22:09, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > I have form issues with these bylaws, primarily that they are intimidating > in their layout and structure. Legal-style #.#.#.# can be especially hard > to read and encodes a viewpoint that is grounded in the American legal > system. The HTML formatting in this specific example is also difficult > to read > > That said, perhaps it is appropriate that our bylaws be this way at least > in part. Would anyone object to a plain-language summary up top in addition > to the legal #.#.#.# commentary? > > -Joan
