discuss: [tfox@redhat.com: HOWTO doc's in 7.3]
Subject:
Re: [tfox@redhat.com: HOWTO doc's in 7.3]
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
17 May 2002 06:53:59 -0000
Message-Id: <20020516235400.A233@lafn.org>
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 01:08:17PM -0400, Tabatha Persad wrote:
>
> > I guess being a writer by trade I just can't understand why someone
> > would abandon their work. However I think it's not a strong enough
> > reason to allow a document to become outdated or obsolete. A strong
> > effort to get these documents revised and back into circulation with
> > recent info would be something I would totally support.
>
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:46:10PM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> 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',
No. In some cases a doc even a few years old may still be valid. We
should first email the author asking about it. Examples 1: My
Text-Terminal-HOWTO will likely be still valid a few years from now as
development of this technology ceased years ago. Example 2:
High-Availability-Linux-HOWTO (1998) has been deleted by us (why ?) but
the project is still very active (as of 2002). This HOWTO set forth all
the goals of the project, some of which still haven't been achieved. I
haven't read it so I could be wrong.
Likewise, a doc on a certain make and model of hardware may be valid for
as long as people use the hardware. The terminal I'm now typing on is
about 20 years old. So even a doc that hasn't be revised in many years
may still be valid.
> 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).
>
> 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 :/
This needs doing but it's not easy. It requires either that authors
draft their own license or that we have an LDP license that provides for
this. The old LDP license had loopholes so we can't just add something
to it. If people are interested in having a new LDP license, I'm willing
to try drafting one.
David Lawyer
