discuss: [tfox@redhat.com: HOWTO doc's in 7.3]
Subject:
Re: [tfox@redhat.com: HOWTO doc's in 7.3]
From:
Tabatha Persad ####@####.####
Date:
12 May 2002 23:47:39 -0000
Message-Id: <20020512234712.QHTX25294.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@there>
Luc, et al.,
Perhaps with this bug tracking/fixing in place this could be minimized.
"Process" can be a dirty word, but not when it means we could be more
productive!
In this scenario, whoever is technically savvy enough to deal with the issue
can view the bug, make recommendations and then the author/maintainer will
simply fix it, or a delegate from the LDP, as long as that provision's been
made I guess.
Also, I think it should be the author's responsibility to consider an
alternate contact if their own time is already compromised for revising their
own work. Perhaps one of the mailing lists at the LDP, so that MANY people
are aware of it., and can pick it up.
Then authors would not be so intimidated by hundreds of messages, and there
could be an additional feedback reference to back up the author.
For example, I wrote a HOWTO for The Linux Counter project. It's an open
source document, but only revisable by area managers, since they are the only
ones who have access to the admin page.
I stated in my copyright that in the event that someone wanted to make
revisions, they can request me to do it, or alternatively suggest the
revisions to the mailing list and let their peers okay the changes before
doing it themselves. This way I am not the person solely responsibile for
the content either. The folks there know that there are alternatives rather
than waiting for me to respond!
Makes myself feel ten times better knowing I have that safety net. The LDP
needs this. As an LDP newbie at the LDP, I have been hesitant to grab
projects because of not wanting to step on toes, this would add a lot of
clarification as to what needs to be done and make me feel like I have the
ability to just jump right in where it's needed.
I know it's getting there... I'm a patient grrl.
In a world where the LDP is regularly updated and managed and all the docs
are up to date, it will make the package that much more attractive to distros
wanting to include them.
On Sunday 12 May 2002 17:54, Luc de Louw wrote:
> Hal Burgiss wrote:
> > I can see how someone loses interest. Say you lose your job, have to
> > take two jobs flipping burgers, and your wife has triplets at the same
> > time. I totally understand peoples lives change unpredictably, as do
> > their priorities. I do NOT understand failure to answer repeated
> > emails to apparently valid email addresses.
>
> See my mail I wrote befor, do you get 200-300 mails a month?
>
> > I think we have to assume this is an inherent problem with volunteer
> > docs, and have a mechanism in place to defeat it. Preferably something
> > automated. Like if a doc has not been updated in one year (or whatever
> > time frame), automatically dump it to 'unmaintained', send an email to
> > the author alerting him to change in status, and see if he wants it
> > back (or maybe some grace period in between).
>
> Thats a good idea, it is maybe a motivator for writers ...
>
> > And then if we need licensing issues corrected so LDP retains enough
> > rights to manage to the docs thereafter, then this should be
> > _required_ of all new submittals. And as always some mechanism to have
> > exceptions to the hard and fast rules :/
>
> I agree
>
> rgds
>
> Luc
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
--
Tabatha Persad
Web: http://www.merlinmonroe.com
The Linux Counter Project Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
Linux Documentation Project Editor (http://www.tldp.org)
Gnu Writing Movement Project Developer (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gwm)
