discuss: Inaction and Proceedures
Subject:
Re: Inaction and Proceedures
From:
Ben Rockwood ####@####.####
Date:
9 Nov 2004 09:31:04 -0000
Message-Id: <41908DFD.1050908@cuddletech.com>
Tor Slettnes wrote:
> Ben Rockwood wrote:
>
>> Rick Moen wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting Ben Rockwood ####@####.####
>>>
>>>> I'm still waiting for review of my previous proposals made 2 weeks
>>>> ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps I've missed something, but LDP generally reviews submitted
>>> documents rather than proposals. It might help if you were more
>>> specific.
>>
>>
>> Sorry if it seems like I'm just bitching, I guess it could look that
>> way... but refering to the LDP Authors
>> Guide: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/process.html
>>
>> This guide outlines that step 1 is to join this list and:
>> " If you have not yet written your documentation, please review our
>> documents (current <http://tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/howtos.html>,
>> unmaintained <http://tldp.org/authors/unmaint.html> and in progress
>> <http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/process.html>) and
>> submit a proposal to the list. Your proposal should include reasons
>> why your document will be different than those already in the
>> collection; or identify a subject that is currently missing from our
>> documentation. For more information about writing proposals, please
>> read Chapter 3
>> <http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/propose.html>."
>>
>> Normally I wouldn't bother to adhere tightly to the rules, but given
>> that someone spent alot of time writing an authors guide, and this
>> outline is echo'ed in other places combined with the staff structure
>> of the project, I just figured that you guys want this done in an
>> organized and strict/proffessional manner, which is what I'm (trying
>> :)), to do.
>
>
>
> I think you misunderstand this text a little (as did I when I
> submitted my first/only document). There is no formal review of
> document proposals submitted to this list. Instead, the purpose of
> this proposal is simply to give other interested parties a chance to
> give you input early in your writing process -- for instance, whether
> a similar document exists, if the document is considered a good idea
> or not, etc.. If you post a link to the document (preferrably an
> HTML version of it), then you'll probably get some comments on it
> (though you may need to prod a couple of times). That's it.
Ah, thank you for the clarification. Indeed, my interpritation was that
I needed to wait for a "green light", hense the quote you included below.
> There certainly seems like there are certain aspects of the TLDP
> process that could be streamlined/professionalized a bit more
> (including, as I understand, better handling/guidelines of legal
> aspects such as copyrights and licensing). However, what you have
> encountered so far does not, IMO, justify the statement
>
>> Given the fact that the proceedures stated in the LDP Authors Guide
>> have effectively broken done to the lack of activity on the part of
>> contributing users or LDP staff [...]
>
>
> (i.e. this is not a fact, and certainly not a given one).
I appologies for the comment. After nearly two weeks with only 1 post
besides mine I got the false impression that TLDP had fallen into
neglect. Based on the responces today I can see that this was an
incorrect observation. As a long time user of TLDP documentation and
seeing the update activity I perhaps improperly assumed TLDP was a
bustling project with large ammounts of activity in the mailing lists..
this was, in hind sight, an assumption I shouldn't have made, and
further shouldnt' have interprited simply by a lack of list activity.
Thanks for the clarifications Tor. They are greatly appreciated.
benr.
