discuss: Publishing process
Subject:
Re: Publishing process
From:
Martin Wheeler ####@####.####
Date:
9 Mar 2005 23:01:14 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503092215240.20267@chaucer.startext.demon.co.uk>
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> in the spirit of open
> source we improve things by submitting patches and leaving the decision of
> its inclusion to the original authors/maintainers.
Lofty sentiment (and one to which I subscribe); unfortunately hardly ever
true in real life. Not until a close working relationship has first been
established. Really.
Concrete instance:
This whole present hoo-hah began when I put the address for the text of a
minitutorial on SGML/XML publishing to the list. I thought it might help.
NOT ONE single list member replied with a patched version of any of the
source texts. Not one.
What I *did* get however was suggestions of what other list members wanted
to see me add to it, for *their* interpretation of what the text was about.
But at no point was any attempt made to 'patch' the document source in any
way, or create a new improved version -- by anyone.
> 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.
As I would have liked to see someone pick up the XML source of the
mini-tutorial and (perhaps) turn it into a doc for the LDP.
But -- IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
And despite your macho, shoulder-rolling programmer attitude of: "Shut Up
And Show [Us] The Code", in reality, the truth is, it hardly ever does.
> 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.
Which saved my altered document not to a common repository; but to my own
hard drive. And I don't have an account on Tille's machine, which is
where I picked the document up from. Even if she'd made it available via
LDP CVS, that wouldn't have helped me, as I no longer have a CVS account
(following really bad bureaucratic experiences trying to resuscitate it
some time ago).
It's a case of: Six of one; half-a-dozen of the other.
Me? I prefer the documentation system.
> As a lot of people keep saying, Shut Up And Show Them The Code.
Err ... you're the first, and so far, only one.
And organisational efficiency does *not* depend on coding skills.
The greater majority of my postings over the last week have had absolutely
zilch to do with coding, and a great deal to do with administration. And
the texts of any concrete administrative proposals I have made have been
flatly rejected -- NOT picked up and patched.
(The best thing to come out of it all is Dave Horton's job descriptions;
from someone else's original suggestion.)
> 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.
['Hotairware'? 'Steamware'?] Whatever.
You stick to doing what you do best; and I'll stick to doing what I do
best.
And at the moment, that consists in an attempt to produce a more efficient
administrative architecture for this group.
Because I believe it desperately needs it.
Regards,
--
Martin Wheeler - StarTEXT / AVALONIX - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
####@####.#### http://www.startext.co.uk/mwheeler/
GPG pub key : 01269BEB 6CAD BFFB DB11 653E B1B7 C62B AC93 0ED8 0126 9BEB
- Share your knowledge. It's a way of achieving immortality. -
