On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 08:38 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > RHM is a vehicle for that input as well as offering a "feedback input" > from the readership. RHM periodically allows readers to respond with > data on how much they benefited from an article, whereas this "new" > interview initiative does not seem to have any such mechanism. BTW, I understand that RHM is improving the feedback mechanism. For example, my last article and the one in the coming issue have forum threads for discussion in my Articles forum (on quaid.108). This thread is now linked from the bottom of the article. Anyway, I would love to see a greater role for FDP in peer review, such as editing Fedora Interviews. Figuring out how to get FDP in the review loop is a good thing for us to discuss about a new project before it gets entirely out in the wild. :) - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
