On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 10:17, Dave Pawson wrote: > > > Any particular reason? > > > >because this is a general lack of documentation and > >not fedora specific. > > And the fact that I chose to write for Fedora? > Not some other org? > > You are ignoring my original question, so I'll > reply in kind to your further comments. Dave's original question was that he was looking for help putting some docs together, which is not the same as declaring he wanted to make this work part of the official FDP roster. He said as much in his post, and merely asked for "comments," although I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) "comments" == "offers to help" == "attaboys" != "good idea for FDP." There's no reason he can't look for help here as well as TLDP. Let's also remember the two groups are complementary, not exclusive of each other. Using the FDP's methods or toolset is neither here nor there. Moreover, one can write docs based on FC, and those can still be largely useful for any Linux distribution. The FDP and TLDP should *never* be in competition with each other, except insofar as it might spur someone to get good docs out more quickly. ;-) Rahul is right in that this should not be part of FDP work at this time, though. The stated goal of the FDP (from the Web site), reads: "The goal of the Docs Project is to create easy-to-follow, task-based documentation for Fedora Core users and developers." If the product doesn't ship with the distro, given the current paucity of official documentation, we should be spending time on other subjects instead. I'll start another thread about a priority list and/or schedule for the docs we should be working on currently, in the hopes that Karsten can give us some ideas, since Tammy's out. Perhaps that will give all the eager beavers around here some *work* to chew on! ;-) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE
