Scott Carr wrote:
If the members of the list can take a little to look over
these. I would like to get an understanding of how
others in the list feel about these items.
Thanks
[...]
Broken Links in the Documentation Project:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=38552
This issue was one of the first I addressed at the
documentation project. I had quite a bit of fun doing it,
and it felt, to me, like I did have very good control of the
broken link situation. Then in the midst, I receive this
comment:
"Diane. I have added a sxw of the data1_EN.html file.
Hopefully it will give you some control over what you are
doing with this item. Scott please review."
Adding a new file is very cool. I should have said thank
you, I guess, and carried on. But what did I do, I wonder,
to make it seem like I was out of control? Seriously. I
found a very nice html file that was simply missing four
closing </a> tags. I added them, and that was that. Very
simple. Very straightforward. Task complete. Even the new
sxw file that was introduced is not the issue. That comment
that introduced it seemed a bit snarky to me, and it side
tracked the work in the issue. This would be one example of
what I labeled "interference".
Note: The definition of terse, according to Merriam
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition:
...1 smoothly elegant: polished 2 devoid of superfluity <a ~
summary>; also: short, brusque <dismissed me with a ~ "no">
syn see concise...
Terse comments are perfectly acceptable, in fact they most
likely are the desired types of comments. The things which I
am trying to show do not fit into the definition of terse.
Sincerely,
Diane Mackay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
