Re: Leaving: replacements

[Paul Scott]

Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:49:00 -0700
> Paul Scott <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>   
> > Graham Percival wrote:
> >     
> > > If you want to jump into the technical side of things, see
> > > "advanced-tech.txt" (or perhaps you have already done this).  To
> > > get an introduction to the non-technical side of the job, I
> > > recommend editing one of the unclaimed sections of NR1.  (see
> > > "current.txt")  "Text" has not been touched yet, while "Pitches"
> > > is almost perfect.  Are you familiar with texinfo?
> > >   
> > >       
> > My main career was as a programmer.  Given that I am concerned about
> > the time it would take to learn how someone else's code works well
> > enough to be able to help there.
> >     
>
> Quite reasonable.
>   
I have actually looked at the scheme code a bit and have learned some 
Python partly to be able to understand GNU Solfege.  That knowledge 
certainly can't hurt.  After years of being a Forth expert C++ was my 
language of choice so who knows where any of that will go.
>   
> > In light of your last email I would be willing to try to work on 
> > writing/revising a section of the doc's that needs work if it's 
> > something I have enough knowledge of.
> >     
>
> Ok; NR 1 Pitches is the most urgent thing at the moment.  Or
> perhaps "urgent" isn't the right word... I'd just really like to
> have one "perfect" section, so that in the future I can point back
> to it.
>
> Once you've finished reviewing Pitches (more for content than
> presentation), we'll see which sections are currently not being
> worked on.  We're only doing NR 1 at the moment, and we'll
> probably have two or three unclaimed sections.
>   
Ok.  I have a copy of pitches.itely and have looked at the guidelines on 
your site.

Paul