[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP TEAM - Proposal Draft 13012015 Call

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Jan 14 12:40:10 CET 2015

On 2015/01/14 2:08, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> 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.

Noted and helpful to know they are not intended to be substantive, while 
I agree it is subjective.

> 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.

I think it we should use the same word to mean the same thing. That is 
something we should cover. so I agree with you Bill on this and I see 
some discussions are taking place for consistency in words.

I also like the idea of avoiding redundancy.

> 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.

I am not sure if I capture what you mean by excision but I agree with 
you about the danger of over-harmonizing.


More information about the CRISP mailing list