Re: [More-than-a-BSP] Announcement Review

Nachricht löschen

Nachricht beantworten
Autor: intrigeri
Datum:  
To: more-than-a-bsp
Betreff: Re: [More-than-a-BSP] Announcement Review
hi,

Mathieu Goessens:
> intrigeri:
>> Mathieu Goessens:
> * Invert the second (CoC) and the third bullets ("We want to bring
> together a heterogeneous group of people"). As the third bullet clearly
> define and introduce the intention. All other points, including CoC, are
> based on this one and it does a nice introduction.


No strong opinion ⇒ applied (even though I didn't manage to guess how
it improves things).

> * Group bullets and have *text, and pagraphs* instead of bullet points.
> I really beleive that text will be more welcoming than bullet points,
> especially for audience that are not cartesian computer scientists. :)


No strong opinion ⇒ done.

> * I think that it may be interesting to add a few words to describe a
> bit more the intention and to have a more natural flow for reading.


> I try to address those points but I prefered to not edit the wiki
> without global aggreement (and a better english level :)).
> You can see them in https://pad.riseup.net/p/00e24qTnQksu.


Sorry, I'm too lazy to manually diff pieces of text, especially
written in two different markup languages (note that editing the wiki
page would give us a diff output for free, for those who like that).

But I'm more than happy if someone else is less lazy / painful and
acts accordingly (e.g. apply the changes or discuss them).

>> If we want to make "Goals and principles" even shorter, we could:
>>
>>  * Drop "Dinner will be self-organized once we are there". It doesn't
>>    provide substantially more actionable info than not saying anything
>>    about dinner at all.


> I tend to agree that this part can be removed. (I did not in my draft)


Done.

>>  * Drop "In other words: if you're part of a group that is currently
>>    under-represented in computer communities, we would like you to be
>>    able to attend" (which is essentially a rephrasing of the previous
>>    two sentences.)


> This one however, i think we can keep this part, to be as explicit as
> possible about this point, especially if we choose to invert bullets 3
> and 2 (see my draft).


OK!

Cheers,
--
intrigeri