[CRISP-TEAM] Alan Barrett's comments on the BW7 draft.

[Nurani Nimpuno]

On 15 jan 2015, at 13:31, Michael Abejuela <mabejuela at arin.net> wrote:

> I would agree with Alan on this point. I think it makes sense that the
> cover letter be in a separate document as it is not truly part of the
> proposal. I understand that for posterity it might make sense to keep it
> all together; however, I observe the cover letter as a supplemental item
> but not a necessary one to the proposal itself.  I think when people open
> the proposal file to read, they would much rather prefer to go directly to
> the proposal than have the first page that opens always being the cover
> letter. Ultimately it¹s not a huge preference for me either way.

+1 
Nurani

> 
> Just my .02
> 
> -Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/15/15, 7:27 AM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>>>> I think that the cover letteer should be in a separate document.
>>>> 
>>>> I disagree.  I believe that our eventual primary work product should
>>>> be a single PDF file containing everything in one.  If we split things
>>>> into separate files, they will inevitably become disassociated in the
>>>> future.  I don¹t think it matters much in the one-week timeframe, but I
>>>> think this is very important in the two year + timeframe.
>>> 
>>> I won't insist on separation, but I do think that two separate
>>> documents would make sense.  When I print the proposal, I don't also
>>> want to print the cover letter.  When I view the proposal on a web site,
>>> I want to see the revision control section at the beginning, not after a
>>> cover letter.
>> 
>> Hm.  I agree with your points, but still disagree that they outweigh the
>> interest of posterity in not seeing related documents drift apart and
>> become disassociated.  But this isn¹t an issue I care strongly about, so
>> I¹d like to see a few other people weigh in with their opinions, so we
>> can make a decision and move forward.
>> 
>>> Most of the content of the cover letter is or could be repeated in the
>>> Abstract, if you are concerned about context being lost.
>> 
>> I¹d much rather just split into two documents than duplicate.
>> 
>>> I'd put the table of contents after the abstract, but I'll defer to
>>> your judgement here too.
>> 
>> You start to get recursion weirdnessŠ  Do things that precede the TOC not
>> appear in the TOC?  Do they appear with negative page numbers?  Does the
>> TOC appear in the TOC?  If so, at page 0?  As soon as you start to
>> venture into wacky territory, you¹re outside what software will
>> automatically handle and update through style sheets (or, worse, outside
>> what it will handle reliably), and then the copyediting becomes a whole
>> order of magnitude more important and more difficult.  And we don¹t have
>> time for that now, unless it¹s a set of manual changes applied at the
>> very end, along with pagination.  And I¹d rather not add to the bundle of
>> last-minute changes, since we¹ve already condensed what I said would be
>> eight hours of work into four, and that makes me nervous about quality.
>> I shouldn¹t be _just now_ finding whole duplicated paragraphs, as I just
>> did.
>> 
>>                               -Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp