[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP TEAM - Proposal Draft 13012015 Call
woody at pch.net
Tue Jan 13 18:08:59 CET 2015
> I understand that there were questions regarding the nature of Bill’s updates and whether they were purely editorial and formatting edits or if any substantive edits to the text were also incorporated. I have not reviewed Bill’s draft in that level of detail and defer to him to confirm this item.
That seems subjective to me, and I don’t think that I’m in a position to judge whether or not the changes people submitted were substantive. My understanding was that we were holding off on anything very substantial until everything was in after the 12th deadline, so I tended to focus on the spelling and grammar and punctuation. To my eye, most of the edits that came through Alan were similar, while some of the edits that Michael had were a little more vigorous, re-ordering paragraphs and so forth. But nothing I would disagree with.
I think the big question in front of us is how far we want to push harmonization within the document… There are a lot of places where different words are used to say similar things. One approach is to hammer them into uniformity, so a lay reader can understand that we’re saying the same thing. Another approach is to be purposefully diverse in our verbiage, to keep from boring people. A third approach, the one I generally prefer, is to reduce redundancy in favor of a more concise document.
The danger in over-harmonizing is when people _thought_ they were saying subtly different things, but they come out the same after harmonization. That tends to make people unhappy. And I’d guess the current draft has a bit of that problem. If we can improve it through excision, that would be my preference.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the CRISP