Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last


On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi :)
It is a wiki-page.  It's actually faster and easier for people to do the
edits themselves.

How can someone possibly come up with the missing 8 references ? How
can anyone but William know what link he intended to use ? It seems to
me that you did not either read the reviews or give much though about
it before belittling _that_ work. (yeah that is the review-content of
the email you _top-posted_ on).

The purpose of the review round is to fact check the LOWN before 'publication'
William is doing a great job.. but so much data means that some of it
is bound to come up wrong....

William, as the Editor and main contributor of that publication,
requested a review.. Review does not means got fix it, it means check
and give feed-back.
Of course everyone is invited to help William compile LOWN, but in my
mind, pre-publication 'review' should be in the form of feed back, so
that the Editor is aware of what is in the published document, even
maybe compile an address book of people to ask review or explanation
from over time... you know, like good journalist do when preparing a
piece. Reading wiki diff is really not fun, much less fun than reading
emailed feedback.

Bear in mind too that the current 'Wiki' format is just 'because it is
convenient'...  I can imagine, especially if William can gather
support and contributor around the idea of LOWN, that a better
support, more stable and reliable, be chosen for 'publication'. maybe
in the form of a tdf-branded dedicated blog or some other media...


While so many people are picking such tiny detail to correct

That is what happen when someone ask for 'review'... although your
conception of 'tiny' is quite peculiar...


Proof-reading, if
thought necessary, should really be done by a 2nd person,

No, it should be done by as many person as necessary, and most
importantly by a set of person that can competently talk about the
different topics under review.

Point in case is Robert Antoni review. no other '2nd person' would
have known better than himself if he had sent a license statement and
point to it in the ML.


Norbert

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: projects+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/projects/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.