Subject:
Re: GNU/Linux Command-Line Tools Summary needs either reviewing or
acceptance
From:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
18 Dec 2003 02:09:48 -0000
Message-Id: <1071713359.1110.49.camel@mysticchild>
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 03:47, Chris Karakas wrote:
> your post makes me wonder what will happen when I release the new version of the
> PHP-Nuke HOWTO. O.K., I know that for new versions of documents that have already
> been in the LDP list of HOWTOs, no review is necessary.
>
> But since the new version of the PHP-Nuke HOWTO is going to be 4 times the size of
> the previous one (almost 400 pages), I think a review is necessary and wonder how it
> can make it through it, if yours is waiting for 10 months now. If 100 pages is huge,
> what is 400 pages then?
Hi Chris,
Missing the addition of Gareth's document I think was merely oversight.
I had it pending, but when it's in that state, I'm usually waiting for
something back, and hadn't gotten around to checking back in on that
one.
If you'd like to have someone review the your changes, there are two
options (bet I know what you'll pick!):
1. Update the document and then one of the reviewers (or myself if no
one volunteers) can grab the file directly from CVS and work from that
copy with you, and do the usual language review, propose the revisions
to you for acceptance, and then publish the changes.
2. You can have one of us review it BEFORE you submit the changes. In
this case, since we are all very busy, and in the middle of the holiday
season, (and in either case, really), you would have to negotiate some
kind of ETA with the reviewer who agrees to do it.
Either way is fine with me. If we can't find a reviewer within about 3
days, I'll make some time and see what I can do.
> Both HOWTOs are very well visited at my homepage, so you don't need to worry about
> exposure. Of course, it would be nice if we could accelerate the reviewing process
> for you. I guess the LDP reviewers have a lot of documents to review and the day has
> only 24 hours - sigh...
Gee, how right you are! We'll get there though. If it's any
consolation, the review process is much more than just to provide you
with a list of things to fix. We're trying to really make sure
everything going out is as error-free as possible. I hope quality
counts for something!
> PS. I wouldn't change the licence - not before the community has agreed upon the
> "right" alternative, or successor, to GFDL. The problem is that writing code is not
> the same as writing books: in the software writing process, you *must* change code
> to create a better version, but in the books world, if I take your document and
> change, say, some opinions on some tools, you may not like to see your name attached
> to those opinions - that's why we have those "invariant" sections (that are
> optional) etc etc. For the time being, I don't see a consensus on an alternative to
> GFDL, so I would still stick to it, on the assumption that, actually, it can't be
> *that* bad. :-)
My recommendations on licenses thus far are to continue using the GFDL
is you don't mind that Debian considers the document non-free. If that
does bother you, the OPL and Creative Commons licenses seem to be
acceptable alternatives.
--
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
