🤔 PRs not reviewed/responded

[JFWooten4]

In re stylizing READMEs, I appreciate that many on the extremely talented core dev team face mammoth daily tasks. Might someone reply to any of the three outstanding diction clarifications documented?¹

• 🖋️ Format CAP-33 update link #1510
• 🔐 Prettify, contextualize custodial challenges #1517
• 🔄 Modernize minor variable specification #1546

Syntax changes have been approved in the past, and I don't see material differences from these and mine. 💬

With everything in software, there's a first iteration. Then people improve upon it—make better and better versions.
— Jed McCaleb

Previous clarifications of mine have quickly been approved because they referred to existing issues. ✅ If I am to extrapolate from this behavior and other stale changes, might I ask if all PRs must solve an issue?²

Motivation

By making the community documentation easier to read on GitHub, do you think we can foster more scrutiny over the protocol?³ Namely, might more eyeballs on the code mean further public understanding and potential bug bounty saves? It's my view that decentralizing this vital information empowers the next generation of contributors to further our great mission. 🌌

Footnotes

1. See also feedback from documentation repo, productive public improvement dialogue, and accurate amendments duly conversed. ↩

2. On this note, I greatly support the recent move from Google Groups to GitHub Discussions for new community upgrades. 💙 As many members have showcased, Discussions add a plethora of formatting benefits, social involvement, and streamlined references that are a step-function advancement for quick, referenceable, and accountable conversations. ↩

3. It is my present understanding that more developers on the network will also help us best achieve a universal global payment system that works entirely for the people it serves. ↩