Karsten Wade schrieb: > On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 19:21 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> Nevertheless could you guys sooner or later discuss the "Or are we >> allowed to fix errors (like the two things mentioned above) ourself if >> we find them?" question? tia! > > How would you envision fixing them? > > You could: > > * Respond on your own blog Hey, it's not such a big deal in this case -- that would hang it much to high IMHO. > * Reply to f-announce-l with an errata In important cases maybe. Not in this one. > * Reply to the list where the erroneous report came from, making it > clear what the error is; then the reporter picks up the correction for > next week Not sure. Just updating the page in cases like this probably is the best start; you of course should mark it somehow; e.g. put something like "[Update]" and "[/Update]" around it. Maybe with a food note "we accidentally wrote foo, but this was wrong and we corrected it now. Apologies for the trouble" -- well, something like that. > It doesn't make sense to edit the Wiki; the content there is essentially > gone once it is written into the newsletter. Agreed, but things happen. Fixing them in the wiki is better then letting wrong stuff stay there while it is the current issue. In addition it might be the best to mention the error and its fix in the next issue somewhere (a special errata section maybe) and everybody should be happy afaics. That how print magazines do it, too (at least here in Germany). > I think for something that is an obvious factual error on FWN's part, we > should issue an errata, to f-announce-l; that at least is what I > propose. If it's something important: yes. But only then. > That makes the errata "official". But if the situation were > different, such as you disagreeing with an opinion or interpretation, > then your only recourse is channels you have direct access to -- your > own blog, email lists, etc. Sure -- but for the two cases that got me to start this discussion it's not a matter of interpretation; some details simply gone wrong accidentally afaics. Or do you disagree? Cu thl P.S.: Here is the relevant part of the original mail I send: ---- [...] I found my name near a section where I think the text is misleading (read: totally wrong): ThorstenLeemhuis was against one of the decisions made in the meeting: the rebuilding en masse of all packages at Test2 release time." The second part of that is not wrong; from the log of the meeting referred to: "In the future we should consider a mass rebuild of all packages around, but no later than test2" "Consider a mass rebuild" and "rebuilding en masse of all packages at Test2 release time" are two totally different things. [...] ---- Ohh: s/not wrong/not correct/ in the second para of course ;-)
