Karsten Wade wrote:
First, where is it written that value in Fedora is only measured in
benefit to end-users?
This is the most obvious audience. Everything else is secondary
benefits. You might improve some workflow, some tools but these must be
side effects and not the primary focus IMO.
/me wonders why the SELinux FAQ didn't make it into Rahul's list of
useful stuff. ;-P
The wiki pages have a lot of good information now the SELinux FAQ is
abandoned.
"There doesn't
seem to enough interest or progress being made."
Oh, uh, thanks?
Should be seen in context.
Not, "discuss over the next
week." If you want to kick up shit over that decision, fine, but be
aware YOU ARE CAUSING MORE WORK AND STRESS.
Just wondering loudly if I am the only one seeing the current situation
as a problem. Looks like it is now or alteast not many
We supposedly already scare people are talking. with all our "barriers" and "tools"
and "processes", do you really think new contributors are going to be
comfortable with "anarchy"?
There is a lot of space in between anarchy and what we have now. There
have been alternative governance models in other distributions. A single
technical and non technical community team and a lead for example. I
honestly dont see any advantage in having a steering committee in docs
as opposed to just a good documentation team with a lead.
Also my suggestion was limited to using existing resources in a
different way as opposed to recruiting more people.
Rahul
--
fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
