discuss: Publishing process
Subject:
Re: Publishing process
From:
"Y Giridhar Appaji Nag" ####@####.####
Date:
9 Mar 2005 22:04:55 -0000
Message-Id: <50708.59.92.137.173.1110405897.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
Martin Wheeler said:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
>
>> Aaah, and where did you say you had the modified flowchart to show, and
>> help us get going?
>
> Giridhar __
>
> It would have been *most* impolite of me to do what you suggest, and 'take
> over' Tille's document from her -- tantamount to saying: "Oh, get out of
> the way, you incompetent -- let me do it."
> (At least, I'm damn' sure that's the reaction I would get from some
> quarters, altho' that would never have been my intent.)
Not really Martin. Much as I might appreciate your concern for Tille's
(or the other list members) possible angry reaction, in the spirit of open
source we improve things by submitting patches and leaving the decision of
its inclusion to the original authors/maintainers. And in case we don't
like their decisions, we fork the software (license permitting) or
possibly re-write it. I am afraid, in this case, I did not see any effort
in that spirit from you. Sad, but true.
> Yes; it would have been perfectly possible to rewrite it for her and post
> it back -- but it is *her* document, and I respect that.
As I said, I would've liked to see a 'Ok list, here is what I did - do you
like it?', and then we could talk.
> (I actually wish we had a system in place where anyone could edit
> documents as they read them -- but we're still a long way from that yet.
> Ask Randy Kramer.)
I disagree. All that a patch contribution needs is basic unix tools and
basic skills to use the same. We don't need complex documentation systems
to do this. The "system in place where [you] could edit documents as they
read them" was your PC/OOO software.
> So instead I posted my comments to the list.
As a lot of people keep saying, Shut Up And Show Them The Code.
> I'm sorry this makes you angry. Are you sure it's not the person you're
> mad at, and not the message?
I would've been equally unhappy with myself, if I were to post
'vapourware' (for the lack of a better term - pardon me) to the list.
Giridhar
--
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/
