Quoting MJ Ray (email@example.com): > As far as I can see, it gets one or two requests most months at > the moment and all but one this year had some positive reply. > The one that didn't was about wiki.d.o, which I think is too > awkward to use anyway, so I'm not surprised. > > So, yes, I think it could cope with some more requests. > What do others think? With such a low number of request, that easily sustainable, sure. However, we might want to promote such proofreading more widely so better know in advance if there's enough manpower to do it. For that reason, I have actually subscribed to the list. Even though I'm not a native English speaker and indeed not a good speaker at all, I can probably bring some help. After all, when it comes at D-I, I often try acting as a reviewer, mostly for overall writing style consistency. > > Having someone commited to animate it would be great, also. I of > > Do you feel the current subscribers are unresponsive, > or do you mean something else? I can't tell up to now as I wasn't subscribed to the list. > > course expect the list to enforce the writing rules suggested in > > DevRef #6.5.... > > Generally, yes, but fortunately DevRef is not policy, so the > self-contradicting bad style of s188.8.131.52 can take a running jump. ;-) Sure, but any enhancement suggestions are welcomed...it is true that 6.52.6 does not seem very well written. Patches welcomed.. I'm afraid we probably cannot turn the recommendations made in DevRef into requirement by the policy because it is not very easy to turn writing style into hard rules....but experience proves that at least recommendations help improving things.
Description: Digital signature