discuss: Proposed LDP Organization: Subject Specialists
Subject:
Re: Proposed LDP Organization: Subject Specialists
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
25 Mar 2005 07:11:10 -0000
Message-Id: <20050325012427.GA2007@lafn.org>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:03:54PM +0000, Martin Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> >we dont have enough volunteers for this proposal. as
> >simple as that
>
> That may be true at the moment, Rahul; but then, maybe we don't have
> enough volunteers because we're currently perceived as not well-organised
> enough?
And because we put too many hurdles in the way of volunteers such as a
long author's guide and Doc Book.
>
> And if we got better organised, we might attract more volunteers?
I now realize that I need to rewrite my proposal a little more clearly.
I originally proposed "subject coordinators" and then just recently
changed that name to "subject specialists". I unfortunately used both
names in my proposal when it's actually the same position. I'm not sure
which name is better. Should we have a "Hard Disk Coordinator" or a
"Hard Disk Specialist"? Here I think "Hard Disk Coordinator" is better
since it provides more information. "Specialist" is redundant. But
then when we talk about all such positions, "Subject Specialist" is more
descriptive than "Subject Coordinator". The word "specialist" implies
that this person is a specialist in a particular subject while "Subject
Coordinator" might be misinterpreted to mean coordinating the work of
the subjects of a king :-).
David Lawyer
