Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Akemi Yagi wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Ned Slider wrote: >>>> Also, whilst undergoing this process, would it also be a good time to >>>> request and/or formalize a documentation SIG as there doesn't appear to >>>> be one at present. Presumably those who have raised their hands would be >>>> obvious candidates for such a SIG. >>> Ummm. I thought this was it? Or please rephrase what you mean by >>> "documentation SIG" ... >> Well, it is listed under "Future SIGs": >> >> http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup > > Question: Do we need more than we have now (meaning: Do we need trac and > subversion or is this mailing list and the wiki enough for now)? We > cannot change the documentation we get from upstream and I don't > remember if we have any other documentation than is on the wiki at the > moment ... > > Cheers, > > Ralph > I don't personally see a need for anything else atm Ralph. Formalizing a SIG could be as easy as nominating a dev team rep (you??), SIG lead and membership, and putting it on the Wiki. I don't really understand why we mirror the RH documentation (manuals) other than to be polite and conserve upstream's bandwidth? Obviously the documentation retains RH's branding so presumably can be freely redistributed but not changed so I'm wondering where's the added value? Is it purely a courtesy or are there other reasons not to point directly to upstream's manuals. One more thing - I'm wondering about the continued use of the "prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor" phrase that appears on the website. Presumably this dates back to a time when Red Hat was less receptive to CentOS but that has changed now? Is this something that could/should be dropped now relations are friendlier? Apologies for taking the thread slightly OT :-)
