Dave,
That is perfectly fine by me. Actually, I intend to offer the same
technical-editor training on the other side of the aisle--over at OOo
docs also. It seems obvious (to me, at least) that the source of the
(expected...) super abundance of technical errors in the current LO
documentation chapter source files had originated in the OOo source
files used as the basis for the current LO documentation.
I intend to offer the training without any specific targets, be they
volunteers at OOo docs or LO docs or from whatever. That is primarily
why I will conduct it online on the forum site instead of having it
buried under the rug and unused at LO docs or elsewhere.
I am on the OOo docs email list also as you, so we both clearly know
that OOo docs is getting a fair number of recent volunteers--such as OOo
getting a new volunteer right before I am posting this message, whereas
LO is not receiving many such new volunteers, for what that is worth.
OOo docs appears to be promoting itself much better effectively relative
to LO docs--even though you have appealed to some new OOo volunteers
recently over at OOo docs to entice them to come over to this side of
the aisle also.
Anyway, I will continue to post the original (improperly edited) LO
source file and the edited LO source file for Chapter 10 on the forum
site and then add the exposition that indicates the specific areas of
sloppiness and technical errors therein and how any technical-editor
trainees, who might ever meander over there (from anywhere), should
eradicate and remedy the errors.
Gary
On 10/14/2011 1:20 PM, David Nelson wrote:
Hi Gary,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Gary Schnabl<[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, my way--working off the forum site--would be much better because I
intend to utilize my edited source files as training experiences with the
expectation for developing a cadre base of future copyeditors, reviewers,
and technical editors. Therefore, it does not matter at all if there are
several versions of individual training files, as the individuals could
submit their own edited versions of previously improperly edited source
files on the Alfresco site themselves, if they so choose to.
OTOH, if you care to keep your LO chapter source files in their present,
unprofessional condition... Well that is OK by me, too. I am offering a
training experience to any prospective editors and such--so that a
sufficient amount of them might be available in the future. Having them see
how the files should be edited (and written in the first place) is really
what needs to happen if the LO documentation project is to continue and
"prosper."
The material is free for you to do what you want with, but - if you
want to contribute to the LibreOffice docs team, it would be
preferable to use LibreOffice resources for the collaboration. Your
material is likely to stay on your forum without anyone benefiting
from it.
--
Gary Schnabl
Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is...
Technical Editor forum <http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/>
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
