Hi, all It seems counterproductive that Rafael Mesquita received three separate responses that started off pretty identically (even though they included unique and useful information). I'd like to offer the suggestion that, when responding to a project proposal sent to the ML, that the responder (1) acknowledge responses sent before his own, (2) try to avoid duplicating content of the prior responses, and (3) explicitly mention how his response differs from the ones before it. Consider it a kind of incremental diff, if you will. The idea is just that the student should be able to read through all of the responses without having to figure out what is the same or different between emails. I imagine responses like "I agree with what responder A mentioned. I'd like to add that..." or "I mostly agree with what A and B mentioned, but also note that such-and-such is another area that could use functionality similar to what you proposed, and would be more pertinent to The Gimp's goals" (To be explicitly clear, these examples were not meant to necessarily pertain to Rafael's proposal). --xsdg _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
