discuss: Re: Review process inconsistencies
Subject:
Re: Review process inconsistencies
From:
rahul ####@####.####
Date:
10 Dec 2003 12:29:39 -0000
Message-Id: <3FD712C9.6080506@yahoo.co.in>
Paul W. Morehead wrote:
> 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.
No. I am informing you of the general review procudure in LDP.
>
> 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,
yes it was kinda adhoc. Its based on majority agreement. I would stick
with it. You can do a review or express your ideas or send me additional
content to the author of the howto. Your contributions are welcome
> 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.
Well. Its very difficult but I invite you to try. Come up with some
concrete proposals and we shall discuss them in the list.
> 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.
LDP generally takes a week or two for documents to be reviewed. This
para is full of unnecessary loaded statements. Some people need
handholding from Apple. Some people like MS products. Whats that got to
do with LDP?. LDP took the decision after a good amount of discussions.
You may or may not agree with it. If you want to help you can contact
the author writing the current version and help him out.
> 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.
>
No. There is no qualification required. If you have the interest and you
see a oppurtunity to contribute you are most welcome. I repeat
disclaimers are not a excuse for bad documentation.
> 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.
You called the decision bone headed. You should have expected some angry
remarks back.On the whole you have got some good explanation from me and
Tille. Atleast two people have *tried* to explain to you the nature of
the decision and pointed out links to where you can find the information
you might be looking for without *any* kind of incentives. Give it a
thought.
> 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.
If you are feeling you are wasting time here you can unsubscribe
anytime. I would request you to look at oppurtunities to work with LDP.
The end decision is yours.
>
> Happy trails.
> -p
>
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
