Re: Please review latest issue of the Debian Project News
MJ and Christian both make good points on this.
The language in the last edition of the DPN really wasn't that bad: it didn't
need much correction (if any).
As with everything, the more notice you can give the better. 2-3 days would be
ideal. Less than a day (or even a couple of hours allowing for the time
differences) really isn't always going to be feasible. Perhaps it could be
corrected/edited/proofed as it's written instead of doing the whole thing at
one time?
Isn't there a better way to manage this process?
I'm sure if it was better managed a lot more proofing work for the Debian
project as a whole could be achieved.
Another idea might be that as the last DPN was for the most part well written,
you could prioritise the work that you feel is you a problem? English can be
a tricky language at the best of times and there are bound to be occasions
when it just doesn't work for you, in which case I'm sure we can help.
All the best,
Jon Evans
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 5:46:56 am Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting MJ Ray (mjr@phonecoop.coop):
> > Looks like a placeholder edition to me. Looking further, the 14th
> > issue was published less than a day after the RFR, before I looked up
> > URLs from this mailbox. I'm not sure, but I don't think l10n-english
> > has enough subscribers yet to do unexpected same-day reviews reliably.
>
> I support MJ's comment. I don't really know how it fits with the DPN
> schedule, but allowing 2-3 days for the review process would *maybe*
> guarantee to get some more reviews.
>
> Of course, Justin B. Rye is very reactive and, most often, his
> comments alone are enough to guarantee a quite high standard in the
> use of English language but....nobody being perfect, he might
> sometimes not be listening.....and we also have efficient proofreaders
> in this list (which includes MJ) who could also contribute (and, of
> course, I'm *not* talking about myself).
>
> Alex and other -publicity people, please consider this suggestion...
Reply to: