> On Jun 12, 2022, at 03:08, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 at 01:49, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com > <mailto:apache....@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> While looking at the secretary workbench process to reject a document, there >> was at the same time a document that has no relevance to the job of >> secretary. >> >> I'm thinking of adding a new reason to reject a document. >> >> @not_relevant; ' not relevant', ' this document is not relevant to the work >> of the Foundation' >> >> We "often" get documents (like those from Abdulrahman) that we will never >> file. As it is, I sometimes just delete it from secretary workbench but >> sometimes I feel like I should tell them that it just is not relevant to our >> job here. >> >> Sebbgestions? > > Interesting typo ... > > Easy enough to add that as another failure type.
Yeah, just wanted to know if anyone else thought it was worthwhile. > > However it's already possible to reply to the email from your own > copy, and just delete the email from the workbench. That is what I have been doing. I was not sure whether any others on the team thought there could be a more formal solution. > > Note that the workbench only shows emails with attachments, so the > Secretary still has to deal with other emails locally. Right. Back to regular programming... Craig > >> Craig >> >> Craig L Russell >> c...@apache.org <mailto:c...@apache.org> Craig L Russell c...@apache.org
