James Carlson wrote: > Agreed. Perhaps we also need an unofficial "how this works" document. > > I do see a need for unambiguous language that sets out exactly how > these things are supposed to work. Otherwise, if we used only > "community-friendly" text, we'd forever get involved in pointless > squabbles about who has the authority to do what, or what things are > "required."
You can be simultaneously unambiguous and easily understandable, in fact the two often go hand in hand. > I agree, though, that much of this stuff is dense, hard to read, and > possibly hazardous to look at while operating machinery. A short and > friendly intro for 'ordinary' project creation would probably be a > helpful. (Though, perhaps, the project in the Subject: line above > wouldn't necessarily benefit.) We don't want two documents explaining the same thing, that tends to just increase confusion rather than reducing it. -- Alan Burlison --
