From owner-freebsd-doc  Fri Jul  2 12:48: 1 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from rmx11.iname.net (rmx11.iname.net [165.251.12.115])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7D14714BEA; Fri,  2 Jul 1999 12:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from thepinkpages@email.com)
Received: from www3.iname.net  by rmx11.iname.net (8.9.1a/8.8.0) with ESMTP id PAA04643
From: thepinkpages@email.com
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
	by www3.iname.net (8.9.1/8.9.2.Alpha2) id PAA24670;
	Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:47:57 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: www3.iname.net: nobody set sender to thepinkpages@email.com using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <990702154757DZ.02520@www3.iname.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:47:57 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: Text/Plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: mpp@FreeBSD.org
Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Unclearness of Re: docs/12487: ambigous reference
Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

From the previous message you'll see
that the reviewers(?) message was unclear.
Further, this message is less clear.

Apparently, the PR has changed states,
as per the reviewer(?). However the
response document is unclear, terse
and confusing.

Clearness can be accomplished by adding
"Severity" information from that 
field. Additionally this information
should be noted in the reponse with
"State-Changed-Why"

Terseness is address in the previous
paragraph. With conviction we state
that a pre-scribed answer should
suffice; with the caveout that this
does not cover all circumstances.

Confusion could be removed by
adding a Natural Language interface
response system. That is to say,
the current response is a techincal
orthocratic response, which seems
clear for accounting/regression
testing purposes. However, an additional
field reponding in a native (English,
Japanese, Spanish, etc.) language 
would be preferable.

Possible Solutions:
Such a system would take all fields
modified and convert the information
into comprehensive and comprehendable
statement that could be review by
reviewer, thereby alliveating(sp?)
the reviewer, comitter, fixer and
reporter from miscommuncation because
of a lack of information,
or from miscommunication because of
an inconsitent response. The caveout
being that the system would be spending
MORE time in policy and review than
in human interaction, which is of
benefit to the entire process.

Cost:
This type of system would demand a
person familar with a G5 language
or language of similar properties
(ie, Prolog, Dylan, Smalltalk).
Resource requirements are those 
consumed by the needed interface(s).

Benefits have been stated.

My involvement:
As per above, the NL interface
could be accomplished. I am willing
to write, maintain and update such
a program. This would include documentaion,
web interfaces, database interface and
components needed for minimal use. 
I prefer PROLOG.

Your involvement:
Should this seen a reasonable do-able
thing. Policy review must be set
down by someone other than myself.
The aforementioned revisions to 
GNATS must be accomplished by someone
other than myself.

Lastly, this would be an opportunity
to add other features. Your response
appreciated.


========================================
From: mpp@FreeBSD.org
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 04:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: thepinkpages@email.com, mpp@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: docs/12487: ambigous reference

Synopsis: ambigous reference

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: mpp
State-Changed-When: Fri Jul 2 04:14:50 PDT 1999
State-Changed-Why: 
This is all tied up with the issued stated in PR docs/12486.
Whatever the final resolution of the PR is will cover this case.



-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message