[Members] XSF membership: what does it mean?
dave at cridland.net
Wed Nov 5 11:22:54 CST 2008
On Wed Nov 5 15:57:12 2008, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> About the reviewing stuff, I think it should be split up into
> several work groups
This can be useful for "expert review". But we also need "general
review", and "proof-reading". Sometimes the latter two pick up errors
we'd otherwise miss.
> (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Council doesn't know
> what it's doing,
Okay, then - I will.
The Council's there to provide an objective overview of the big
picture. We cannot and do not have an intricate knowledge of audio
codecs, or GPS characteristics, or whatever else might be needed. So
we don't always know what we're doing. This is where expert review
Also, we're only human, and cannot spot every error, and we're
sometimes so far "into" these specifications we fail to see how much
knowledge is assumed - this is entirely the opposite of being an
expert, and is where general review comes in.
Finally, we're not copy editors by trade, and while we've only one
non-native English speaker - and Ralph's English is perfect anyway -
this means we're prone to, perhaps, not noticing confusing uses of
English. So simple proof-reading is very useful, making sure that our
specifications remain clear and useful.
This isn't limited to specifications which are under active scrutiny,
too - we've a lot of specs, some of them largely untouched for years,
and updating or polishing those is a mammoth task.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Members