Deciding how to phrase contributions is a surprisingly tricky problem, and in fact I think that the way a contribution is written can (to some degree) demonstrate the author's level of understanding and appreciation of the project and community's time commitments.
Some projects have extremely high issue volume, use their own automation/triage, and prefer very terse communication -- and in those cases it may make sense to include only the minimal details required.
In other cases a hobby or community-building project (for example) might prefer more informal and friendly communication.
Either way, the author's phrasing isn't the only factor that matters in each situation. The relationship also depends on the project/community responding effectively.
We're all human, we all make mistakes, and English is not everyone's first language, so a well-run project should afford for those (while also being cautious not to get completely sidetracked dealing with noise).
Some projects have extremely high issue volume, use their own automation/triage, and prefer very terse communication -- and in those cases it may make sense to include only the minimal details required.
In other cases a hobby or community-building project (for example) might prefer more informal and friendly communication.
Either way, the author's phrasing isn't the only factor that matters in each situation. The relationship also depends on the project/community responding effectively.
We're all human, we all make mistakes, and English is not everyone's first language, so a well-run project should afford for those (while also being cautious not to get completely sidetracked dealing with noise).