discuss: Re: Beginning of outline for policies
Subject:
Re: Beginning of outline for policies
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
19 May 2002 09:22:00 -0000
Message-Id: <20020519022109.A543@lafn.org>
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 03:29:28AM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> I'm not going to reply point by point to your email, David, but I
> would like to express my own opinion about the proper role of the
> review/editor.
>
> Basically, their title should reflect what they do. If they only
> review documents, provide a summary of issues, for example, then they
> are a reviewer. Like if they only ask the author to make changes.
That's what I think they should be mostly doing. I think their title
should reflect what they mainly do and that's reviewing. That's not to
say that they must never do any editing,
> If they actually make changes (which would be after talking to the
> author ONLY unless the doc is unmaintained), they are an editor. Even
> if those changes are sent to the author for him to review, approve,
> and submit.
>
> Either of those roles are valid roles, and roles that people should be
> free to take up. There is no reason we cannot have an "editor" who
> actually does editing! As long as we work hand in hand with the
> author, it is a good thing to do.
But why call a person who does mainly reviewing an editor? The name
"editor" seems too authoritarian for a free volunteer organization
like the LDP.
> What we do not want is for an editor to edit a document without
> coordinating with an active maintainer. That is just rude and uncalled
> for.
True. So let's call people who mainly review docs reviewers.
David Lawyer
