discuss: Quality (Was: Re: Modifiability of documentation and software)
Subject:
Re: Quality (Was: Re: Modifiability of documentation and software)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
1 Mar 2005 09:21:31 -0000
Message-Id: <20050301083301.GA851@lafn.org>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, David Lawyer wrote:
>
> > The reason RedHat dropped our docs was due to them being outdated (I
> > think they complained about quality). The non-modifiability issue had
> > nothing to do with it. So I think that modifiability has nothing to do
> > with getting our docs back in distributions.
>
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0000, Machtelt Garrels wrote:
> That was a while ago, I think. Wouldn't it be good to contact them and
> explain about the procedures that we created in order to ensure the
> quality of our documents?
It was around Nov. 2002. Since then there's been both improvement and
degradation. We never went thru the collection to weed out obsolete
docs and the number of obsolete docs has thus grown. At the same time,
new docs have at least had a language review. By submitting them to
discuss, many got a crude but often incomplete technical review. Also,
we pulled the notorious Al Dev HOWTOs.
However, we still have no database for analysis of our collection,
noting of reviews, ratings, etc. Key people like Dave Merrill and
Tabatha Marshall have left and the new Review Coordinator, Todd Hawley,
never took charge. So we are little if any better off than we were over
2 years ago; probably worse off at the present moment sad to say.
David Lawyer
