discuss: Re: Review process inconsistencies
Subject:
Re: Review process inconsistencies
From:
"Paul W. Morehead" ####@####.####
Date:
10 Dec 2003 11:24:41 -0000
Message-Id: <3FD700E9.6050204@sbcglobal.net>
rahul wrote:
>> I'd like to request that the HOWTO remain available at LDP during the
>> review/improvement process.
>> -p
>
> LDP doesnt remove howtos during the review process. Al dev's howto are
> actually being replaced in case you are still wondering
Your informing me of the pending replacement of the Al Dev howtos was
what brought me to this list in the first place, Rahul.
But while we're at it, maybe the LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO needs a review then,
too. It still seems like the decision to remove the kernel howto was an
ad-hoc decision, and my point all along has been that of a simple linux
user: that even bad documentation was better than no documentation, and
especially better than withheld documentation. I guess I would suggest
a set of criteria for deciding on what to do with old/bad/whatever
documents when a decision is made (or in the process of being made) to
review a document.
The time lapse between the decision to *remove* the kernel howto for
*review*--which is precisely how its status is portrayed at
tldp.org--and the file date on what will hopefully become the
new/revised kernel howto is three days (gleaned from doing a Page Info
or Ctrl-I in Mozilla on both the removal notice and the new kernel howto
web pages--apologies of such sleuthing is giving me false data). I'm
not complaining about the speed at which these reviews and improvements
occur--this is a volunteer effort and I know quite well what that means,
thank you. But in devising such a set of criteria, I would like very
much that those doing so keep in mind the perspective of what I
personally believe is quite probably representative of the majority of
linux users: neophytes and newbies bold enough to depart from MS and
Apple hand-holding, smart enough to get things running, yet wise enough
to know that open source software and documentation comes with a priori
disclaimers.
Nobody here on this list might agree with my perspectives: I would
hazard a guess you're all more familiar with Linux than I am anyhow, and
that to you (though from reading November threads I know it's not ALL of
you) the decision to remove bad documentation is better than annotating
it as such while improvements are made might seem quite logical. To me
it's not.
It's very frustrating to feel like my perspective on the one small issue
of the *removal* of a document is largely being ignored on this list. A
note from Machtelt, one "mr. smarty pants" response from jdd and an
ardurous and apparently unproductive back-and-forth attempt to strike a
compromise with Rahul, and that's it. I thought I could help by joining
and participating in this list. I felt I was expressing myself quite
well. Reading and thinking and typing even made me feel a little
intelligent. But then again, part of me just wants to say "screw it"
and unsubscribe. Maybe it's not impossible after all for a man to
approach knowing what it's like to be a woman at a LUG meeting.
Happy trails.
-p
