On May 31, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need >> to change here. And I do think we might lose something >> if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers >> did say "yes, I found that made the document less >> useful" then I'd be more convinced that all these >> changes were worth it. > > +1 > > I do not believe that *over*simplyfying the language is beneficial for > a clearly non-technical document. Using a language that is similar > to discussion on mailing lists should be perfectly OK, as long as > the colloquial expressions can still be googled easily, for those > not familiar with them. I have to google Dilberts and xkcd every once > in a while, an those sometimes contain very "local" expressions that > are really difficult to find -- and still I'm OK with this. > > -Martin
I had to look up some things when I ready The Adventures of ACTION ITEM for the first time[1], but the TAO draft is nowhere near that level. Besides, it's essential vocabulary for anyone seeking a career in project management. Yoav [1] http://professionalsuperhero.com/
