On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:43:06 +0100 Armin Krezović <armin.krezo...@fet.ba> wrote:
> On 21.3.2016 8:57, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:33:21 +0100 > > Armin Krezović <armin.krezo...@fet.ba> wrote: > > > >> On 13.03.2016 18:22, Armin Krezović wrote: > >>> Hello Pekka, Quentin and Kat (sorry, don't know the real name yet). > >>> > >>> Pekka and Quentin have volounteered to review my GSoC application > >>> draft for the Wayland project. Pekka also suggested to add Kat to > >>> the list of reviewers. > >>> > >>> As suggested, I've used Google Docs to create a document. You can > >>> access it at: > >>> > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bBgH8h9UiAPkipGjxHePnmcVU73Tef033-xojVWIhCU/ > >>> > >>> Embedded below is the text from document, so you can comment on > >>> individual sentences/paragraphs/etc if needed. > >>> > >>> Thank you in advance and looking forward to your reply. > >>> > >>> Armin. > >>> > >> > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> The proposal has been updated to reflect all the feedback I've > >> received so far. I didn't include the text in the mail this time. > >> > >> Pekka and Quentin should be able to comment on the Google document > >> which is available at the URL referenced above. > >> > >> Please let me know if any other adjustments are needed. > >> > >> Highlights: > >> > >> - Completely rewrite Project Scope paragraph to include more details. > >> - Improve wording in Dedication paragraph so I sound more dedicated :). > >> - Extend Dedication paragraph to include additional information on > >> how the project will be realized. > >> > >> If all goes well with this one, I plan to submit it on Monday, as > >> said in one of the replies. > > > > Hi Armin, > > > > Salut, > > > in "dedication" you refer to "the first part of my proposal" but that > > is not too clear, I am left to guess what you mean. > > Now that you mention it, it looks kinda confusing. How about now? I've > included 3 tasks in a list so it's more clear which is the first one. Much better, now I think I can guess right. :-) I could still nitpick on not defining what "parts" are, since the first occurrence of the word "part" is in the dedication section and nothing is called "a part" before that. ;-) If you wrote "That includes three parts:" and numbered the bullet points, that would make it perfectly clear. Then you can refer to part 1, part 2, etc. Thanks, pq
pgpBZ0kPm_Ngf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel