This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 3, 2022. It is now read-only.
Can we simplify language and purpose here? #5
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The goal of the guidance is commendable, but it tends to be a hard read, and I'm not sure it has to be. First suggested edited pp here may not meet full intent, but since were really talking about saving money, reducing inefficiencies and waste while increasing transparency I'm wondering if something like this might work instead. Finally, the multiple in-line references to other GAO documents seems to overly complicate the text, and since you can embed hyperlinks, perhaps they don't need to be spelled out quite as much. If the document is intended at all for broad consumption I'm wondering if a few edits in this light might go a long way towards improving the document and the clarity of the message. For what it's worth -
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The goal of the guidance is commendable, but it tends to be a hard read, and I'm not sure it has to be. First suggested edited pp here may not meet full intent, but since were really talking about saving money, reducing inefficiencies and waste while increasing transparency I'm wondering if something like this might work instead.
Finally, the multiple in-line references to other GAO documents seems to overly complicate the text, and since you can embed hyperlinks, perhaps they don't need to be spelled out quite as much. If the document is intended at all for broad consumption I'm wondering if a few edits in this light might go a long way towards improving the document and the clarity of the message.
For what it's worth -