On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:06, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >... >> The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and >> provided feedback. It uses terms from the svn community. >... > No way would the Board (nor you) allow arbitrary terminology across > projects even if it is "parentheticals" (whatever that means). You
Here is a definition I found, and it matches my intent: parenthetical: Set off within or as if within parentheses; qualifying or explanatory > would shoot such project down faster than they could type it out in > the report. Euh. Go read the reports some time. There are lots of PMC-specific terms in those reports. We understand them from experience, context, or putting a query back to the PMC. I doubt the Board really cares about the terms, as long as they can understand the report. >... > judgment when you are holding fast to this view that projects (at > least Subversion!) can change the terminology in board reports because > they are too lazy to change. The Board report uses normal terminology, and supplements that with svn terminology. Go read it; I posted it else-thread. >... > why > not spend a little effort on educating the Subversion community to go > with the flow. How fking hard can that be?? As I said in my other post, by using *both* sets of terms in the report, the svn community also learns what the "formal" names are here at the ASF. They can see the translation. So yeah. I'm doing exactly what you're asking: educating the community on what a report looks like and what the proper terms should be. >... Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
