You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@whimsical.apache.org by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> on 2022/06/12 00:49:47 UTC
E_NO_CARE
While looking at the secretary workbench process to reject a document, there was at the same time a document that has no relevance to the job of secretary.
I'm thinking of adding a new reason to reject a document.
@not_relevant; ' not relevant', ' this document is not relevant to the work of the Foundation'
We "often" get documents (like those from Abdulrahman) that we will never file. As it is, I sometimes just delete it from secretary workbench but sometimes I feel like I should tell them that it just is not relevant to our job here.
Sebbgestions?
Craig
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: E_NO_CARE
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
> On Jun 12, 2022, at 03:08, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 at 01:49, Craig Russell <apache.clr@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> While looking at the secretary workbench process to reject a document, there was at the same time a document that has no relevance to the job of secretary.
>>
>> I'm thinking of adding a new reason to reject a document.
>>
>> @not_relevant; ' not relevant', ' this document is not relevant to the work of the Foundation'
>>
>> We "often" get documents (like those from Abdulrahman) that we will never file. As it is, I sometimes just delete it from secretary workbench but sometimes I feel like I should tell them that it just is not relevant to our job here.
>>
>> Sebbgestions?
>
> Interesting typo ...
>
> Easy enough to add that as another failure type.
Yeah, just wanted to know if anyone else thought it was worthwhile.
>
> However it's already possible to reply to the email from your own
> copy, and just delete the email from the workbench.
That is what I have been doing. I was not sure whether any others on the team thought there could be a more formal solution.
>
> Note that the workbench only shows emails with attachments, so the
> Secretary still has to deal with other emails locally.
Right. Back to regular programming...
Craig
>
>> Craig
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> clr@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: E_NO_CARE
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 at 01:49, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While looking at the secretary workbench process to reject a document, there was at the same time a document that has no relevance to the job of secretary.
>
> I'm thinking of adding a new reason to reject a document.
>
> @not_relevant; ' not relevant', ' this document is not relevant to the work of the Foundation'
>
> We "often" get documents (like those from Abdulrahman) that we will never file. As it is, I sometimes just delete it from secretary workbench but sometimes I feel like I should tell them that it just is not relevant to our job here.
>
> Sebbgestions?
Interesting typo ...
Easy enough to add that as another failure type.
However it's already possible to reply to the email from your own
copy, and just delete the email from the workbench.
Note that the workbench only shows emails with attachments, so the
Secretary still has to deal with other emails locally.
> Craig
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>