standards/review - Change code to `r-user` and `r-tech`

There was confusion in some docs about `r-user` vs `r-users`. Standardize on `r-user`.

The name `r-technical` was bit more verbose than all the other abbreviations. `r-tech` looks like it'll fit better.

docs/standards/review.md

@@ -37,13 +37,13 @@ Use the code somehow. You don’t need to attack every imaginable scenario in ev
 
 ### User impact {:#r-user}
 
-_Standard code: `r-users`_
+_Standard code: `r-user`_
 
 If a user was comfortable using the old revision, would they upgrade and assimilate naturally and unthinkingly to the new revision? If not, has there been commensurate effort to provide a fair transition-path and communication?
 
-### Technical impact {:#r-technical}
+### Technical impact {:#r-tech}
 
-_Standard code: `r-technical`_
+_Standard code: `r-tech`_
 
 * Would the patch materially change the contract (signature/pre-condition/post-condition) for APIv3, a hook, a PHP function, a PHP class, a JS widget, or a CSS class?
 * Would you consider the changed element to be an officially supported contract? A de-facto important contract? An obscure internal detail?

docs/standards/review/template-del-1.0.md

@@ -24,13 +24,13 @@
     * __PASS__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it behaved as expected.
     * __ISSUE__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it had a problem.
     * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
-* User impact ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users))
+* User impact ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user))
     * __UNREVIEWED__
     * __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature.
     * __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining).
     * __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan.
     * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
-* Technical impact ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical))
+* Technical impact ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech))
     * __UNREVIEWED__
     * __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream.
     * __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed.

docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md

@@ -20,12 +20,12 @@
     * [ ] __PASS__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it behaved as expected.
     * [ ] __ISSUE__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it had a problem.
     * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
-* User impact ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users))
+* User impact ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user))
     * [ ] __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature.
     * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining).
     * [ ] __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan.
     * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)*
-* Technical impact ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical))
+* Technical impact ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech))
     * [ ] __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream.
     * [ ] __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed.
     * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change potentially affects compatibility, and the risks have **not** been sufficiently managed.

docs/standards/review/template-word-1.0.md

@@ -8,5 +8,5 @@
 * ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc)) __Undecided__
 * ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint)) __Undecided__
 * ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
-* ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
-* ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
+* ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)
+* ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)