On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 22:22 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > http://distrocenter.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/03/13/1919208 > > Contributors to the DUG: > > 1. Read. > 2. Cry/wail/gnash teeth. > 3. Ingest. > 4. Discuss. > 5. Fix. First observations: * It is a fair review and accurate in its guesses * We feel into traps in the FDUG that are described in the review - Inconsistency - Focus on lists of features instead of what can be done and how to do it * As a first-effort it was good enough to publish * The FDUG has many shining parts, and many other bruises FWIW, we saw many of the problems that the article details before publishing, but we couldn't delay publishing any longer. Fortunately, we now have a review to balance against and make adjustments with. Technical writing is a lot harder in the work of it than many people realize. I'm very glad we got this guide out there and are receiving reviews we can work against. Let's turn this all to our advantage; make big improvements in the F7 version; and carry over the improvements to the Administration Guide. Rock on! - 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-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
