Re: Review of Documentation Policy
Joshua Saddler <[email protected]> Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:22:37 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.gentoo.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20110923172237.6b565b10@angelstorm> |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:49:25 +0000 Sven Vermeulen <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, I have a suggestion for the Gentoo Documentation Project > Policy. The suggested document can be found at [1], the diff output > at [2]. > > [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/docs/previews/doc-policy.xml > [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/docs/previews/doc-policy.txt > > Feedback is, as always, very much appreciated. Joshua, especially > from you (I definitely do not want to touch that guide without your > blessing ;-) Thanks for the draft! From a quick run-through of the patch (much obliged for that, thanks), it seems pretty good. The major differences to the original doc are: 1. Doing away with the Strategic/Operational lead split. We haven't had two people doing those jobs in 5 years, anyway. 2. Translation project leads and "official" language status. Any comments as to the changes here? 3. Join-up process. No formal "X number of contributions per period Y." Works well enough for me, but then "how much does this potential recruit actually do for us" becomes subjective hand-waving. We would need a new metric to determine commitment over time. Ideas? Anyway, if you can clarify your thinking on these 3 points, just so I know where you're coming from, I'm fine with the proposed update. How about the other GDP members -- any thoughts from the rest of you?
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 198 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk59ItAACgkQxPWMzpKk6kOz/QCfWZlgUYt2TRsUFKbAfVF/gA6C Q+MAn2uYQMEjL+cobgORR5585tj7gCC/ =jryI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----