Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Yah, plus your technical writing isn't bad either, from the few 
>> snippets you've posted here when you write about things you enjoy.
> 
> Ooo... really?

Really. You could write informal white-papers that other geeks would 
read, methinks.  (At least, I read what you write and find it interesting.)

The part others seem to think you lack is the knowledge of how to 
structure a document that's bigger.  You need to be able to say (a) why 
would the reader want to read this document, and (b) present it in an 
order and form that makes it easiest to understand.

> Interestingly, my experience with the disaster recovery procedure 
> document suggests otherwise...

Oh. OK. Well, I haven't seen that. :-) I'm not saying you can't, I'm 
saying that earlier in this thread, you said
 > I have no idea how to write a report...

Based on that...

> That document is now 25 pages long, and consists of a high-level 
> non-technical explanation of what systems we have in the first place, 
> the fault tolerance measures it has, the emergency contracts he hold, 
> etc etc before it even goes *into* disaster recovery steps. And then, 
> for each disaster, it explains (in non-technical language) exactly what 
> impact such a fault would have, and lists various recovery options. 
> Apparently "external auditors love it". Make of that what you will...]

It means that "I have no idea how to write a report" is incorrect. It 
sounds like exactly what you ought to be writing.

Why  do you say you don't know how to write a report, when you're 
getting praise for the quality of your report from people whose job is 
to *judge the quality of your report*. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message