discuss: Quality Control (was: GNU/Linux Command-Line Tools Summary)
Subject:
Quality Control (was: GNU/Linux Command-Line Tools Summary)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
15 Dec 2003 05:05:11 -0000
Message-Id: <20031215050413.GE677@lafn.org>
> David Lawyer wrote:
>
> >A major problem is that of scope.
>
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:00:13PM +0100, jdd wrote:
> I don't understand.
>
> somebody did write this HOWTO.
>
> I'm sure some people read it and enjoy it.
>
> what other reason is there? you may think what you want, the burden of
> keeping the HOWTO is very small, so I say "wy not".
>
> HOWTO's are not a structured collection, but an informal one. the more
> the better
I don't agree. The poor quality of our documents led to their rejection
by Redhat. It's also hurt us much more that just this. It's meant that
the LDP docs are a lot less popular (based on the % of Linux Users that
use them a lot). There was a lot of criticism of LDP docs on slash-dot
in response to our recent euphemistic announcement of our 10th anniversary.
Mistakes were made in the past by accepting some docs without review. I
think that our motto should be not "the more docs the better" but
"the more good docs the better".
I think that the quality required depends on the need for the doc. If
there is no other freely available documentation on the topic and the
topic is of some significance, then the quality need not be too high.
But where there are other good sources of information on the topic, then
I think that the quality needs to be higher to be acceptable. Also,
since our purpose is to document GNU/Linux, docs that are somewhat
off-topic (like Women-in-Linux) need to be held to a higher standard in
my opinion.
David Lawyer
